MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3034051152 · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09014-8

Is the modified household food security survey (HFSS) questionnaire a practical tool for screening food insecurity? Evidence from northwest of Iran

2020· article· en· W3034051152 on OpenAlexaff
Helda Tutunchi, Mehrangiz Ebrahimi‐Mameghani, Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi, Nazila Farrin, Sirous J Tabrizi, Elnaz Vaghef‐Mehrabany, Alireza Ostadrahimi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of TabrizTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsEnvironmental healthFood securityPublic healthEpidemiologyDemographyFood frequency questionnaireInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adequate supplies of food and food security (FS) are the fundamental aspects of human societies, and considered one of the pivotal factors of individual and social health. The aim of the present study was to assess the applicability of the short questionnaire for screening food insecurity (FI) and to evaluate the prevalence of FI in northwest of Iran. METHODS: In this study, 550 subjects aged ≥16 years were studied. Three-day dietary records and a short questionnaire were applied to estimate the prevalence of FI in terms of hunger and hidden hunger. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the short questionnaire were assessed. Moreover, the association between the results of the short questionnaire and the criteria that were theoretically related to FI were examined. Data were presented as mean (SD), median (min-max) for the numeric normal and non-normal variables, respectively, and frequency (percent) for categorical variables. The between-group comparisons of variables were done using independent samples t test. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The prevalence of hunger and hidden hunger was 30.8 and 46.0%, respectively. Overall, 23.2% of the subjects were classified as "food secure". The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the short questionnaire in determining hunger were 92.8% (95% CI: 87.3-95.9), 84.2% (95% CI: 79.3-89.3), and 87% (95% CI: 84-90.2), respectively. These values for hidden hunger were 21.6% (95% CI: 15.7-29.9), 92.3% (95% CI: 88.7-99.4), and 53.4% (95% CI: 47.9-59.8), respectively. Our study showed a statistically significant association between FI and socio-economic status. FI significantly enhanced the risk of underweight, while it markedly reduced the risk of overweight and obesity. The average frequency of monthly consumption of meat, dairy products, fruits, vegetables, and rice was significantly lower in food insecure group, while the median frequency of bread consumption was markedly higher in food insecure group. The participants of insecure group were less likely to consume fruits, vegetables, dairy products, rice and meat. CONCLUSIONS: FI was frequent in North-west of Iran. The findings indicated that the short questionnaire was a simple, low-cost and practical tool for screening FI in terms of hunger. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IR.TBZMED.REC.1397.400.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.624
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.145 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→