Dietary Habits of University Students Living at Home or at University Dorm: A Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Living with the family at home or away from it at the university dorm might affect the behavior of students, including their dietary habits. The aim of this study was to assess the differences in dietary habits between Saudi undergraduate students living with their families and those living at university dorms.METHODS: A cross-sectional study done at six Saudi universities. We recruited 354 undergraduate students. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect data on socio-demographic characteristics, dietary habits, physical activities, perceived body weight and gastro-intestinal symptoms. Differences between students living at home with their families and those living on campus at university dorms were assessed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Three quarters of our sample were female (77%). Almost 80% of the students lived with their families. Change in dietary habits after joining the university was significantly more common among students living at university dorms (p< 0.001). Major changes in dietary habits were found in 68.6% of students living at home with their families and in 31.4% of those living at university dorms. Moreover, we found significant difference between students living with their families and those living at university dorms, regarding place of breakfast (p= 0.003), place of lunch (p< 0.001), place of dinner (p= 0.002) and perceived body weight (p= 0.018).CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Most of the students were living with their families. However, students living at university dorms were at higher risk of unhealthy change in their dietary habits. More nutritional interventions to enhance the health of students should be introduced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".