MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921434923 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzz014

Examining the Advantages of Using Multiple Web-Based Dietary Assessment Instruments to Measure Population Dietary Intake: The PREDISE Study

2019· article· en· W2921434923 on OpenAlexafffund
Didier Brassard, Victor L. Fulgoni, Julie Robitaille, Simone Lemieux, Benoı̂t Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanola Council of CanadaDairy Farmers of CanadaCanadian Nutrition SocietyRoyal Bank of CanadaUniversité LavalPfizer
KeywordsPercentileRepeated measures designStatisticsMedicinePopulationStandard deviationPercentile rankFood intakeMathematicsEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combining traditional dietary assessment instruments has been suggested to improve precision of dietary intake estimates. However, this has not been investigated using web-based 24-h recall (R24W) or a web-based food-frequency questionnaire (wFFQ). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare different combinations of web-based instruments to assess population-level dietary intake estimates (means and percentiles) and their precision, either with or without statistical modeling of within-person day-to-day variations. METHODS: As part of the cross-sectional PREDISE study, 1025 French-speaking adults completed 3 randomly allocated R24W and 1 wFFQ within 21 d. Crude estimates of intake were generated from either 1 or 3 repeated R24W. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) method was used to account for within-person variation. Usual intakes were modeled from 1 R24W repeated in a subsample (40%) and from 3 R24W, with or without consideration of data from the wFFQ. RESULTS: Using crude data from 3 R24W increased precision of estimates and modified distribution of intakes compared with using data from only 1 R24W. Using NCI-modeled data from 3 repeated R24W had no impact on the precision around mean intakes but increased precision of low and high percentiles intake estimates compared with NCI-modeled data from a partially repeated R24W. Considering data from a wFFQ in combination with data derived from 3 R24W did not influence the precision of intake estimates of most foods and nutrients. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that relying on repeated measures of food and nutrient intake through R24W is preferable to single assessment when within-person variation is not considered. Data also suggest that when NCI modeling is applied, using 3 R24W only improves the precision of low and high percentiles intake estimates compared with using a partially repeated web-based recall.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207