MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Piloting the objective measurement of eating behaviour at a population scale: a nested study within the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

2020· preprint· en· W3047423387 on OpenAlexaff
Kaitlin H. Wade, Laura Clifford, Andrew J. Simpkin, Rhona Beynon, Laura Birch, Kate Northstone, Sarah Matthews, George Davey Smith, Julian Hamilton‐Shield, Nicholas J. Timpson

Bibliographic record

VenueWellcome Open Research · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMedical Research CouncilElizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of BristolUniversity of BristolNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKWellcome Trust
KeywordsPopulationPsychologyBiologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Background:</ns3:bold> Effective measurement and adaption of eating behaviours, such as eating speed, may improve weight loss and weight over time. We assessed whether the Mandometer, a portable weighing scale connected to a computer that generates a graph of food removal rate from the plate to which it is connected, together with photo-imaging of food, might prove an effective approach to measuring eating behaviours at large scale. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> We deployed the Mandometer in the home environment to measure main meals over three days of 95 21-year-old participants of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. We used multi-level models to describe food weight and eating speed and, as exemplar analyses, examined the relationship of eating behaviours with body mass index (BMI), dietary composition (fat content) and genotypic variation (the <ns3:italic>FTO</ns3:italic> rs9939609 variant). Using this pilot data, we calculated the sample size required to detect differences in food weight and eating speed between groups of an exposure variable. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results:</ns3:bold> All participants were able to use the Mandometer effectively after brief training. In exemplar analyses, evidence suggested that obese participants consumed more food than those of "normal" weight (i.e., BMI 19 to &lt;25 kg/m <ns3:sup>2</ns3:sup> ) and that A/A <ns3:italic>FTO</ns3:italic> homozygotes (an indicator of higher weight) ate at a faster rate compared to T/T homozygotes. There was also some evidence that those with a high-fat diet consumed less food than those with a low-fat diet, but no strong evidence that individuals with medium- or high-fat diets ate at a faster rate. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusions:</ns3:bold> We demonstrated the potential for assessing eating behaviour in a short-term home setting and combining this with information in a research setting. This study may offer the opportunity to design interventions tailored for at-risk eating behaviours, offering advantages over the “one size fits all” approach of current failing obesity interventions. </ns3:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWellcome Open ResearchSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207