Comparison of Geographic Information System and Subjective Assessments of Momentary Food Environments as Predictors of Food Intake: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been observed that eating is influenced by the presence and availability of food. Being aware of the presence of food in the environment may enable mobile health (mHealth) apps to use geofencing techniques to determine the most appropriate time to proactively deliver interventions. To date, however, studies on eating typically rely on self-reports of environmental contexts, which may not be accurate or feasible for issuing mHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the subjective and geographic information system (GIS) assessments of the momentary food environment to explore the feasibility of using GIS data to predict eating behavior and inform geofenced interventions. METHODS: In total, 72 participants recorded their food intake in real-time for 14 days using an ecological momentary assessment approach. Participants logged their food intake and responded to approximately 5 randomly timed assessments each day. During each assessment, the participants reported the number and type of food outlets nearby. Their electronic diaries simultaneously recorded their GPS coordinates. The GPS data were later overlaid with a GIS map of food outlets to produce an objective count of the number of food outlets within 50 m of the participant. RESULTS: Correlations between self-reported and GIS counts of food outlets within 50 m were only of a small size (r=0.17; P<.001). Logistic regression analyses revealed that the GIS count significantly predicted eating similar to the self-reported counts (area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC-ROC] self-report=0.53, SE 0.00 versus AUC-ROC 50 m GIS=0.53, SE 0.00; P=.41). However, there was a significant difference between the GIS-derived and self-reported counts of food outlets and the self-reported type of food outlets (AUC-ROC self-reported outlet type=0.56, SE 0.01; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The subjective food environment appears to predict eating better than objectively measured food environments via GIS. mHealth apps may need to consider the type of food outlets rather than the raw number of outlets in an individual's environment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".