Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) for Assessing Dietary Lignans Intake in Hong Kong Chinese Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lignans intake has been suggested to have effects on breast cancer outcomes based on some studies from the West. However, the relationship of lignans consumption and breast cancer outcomes in Chinese population has not been investigated. The development of a culture-specific lignan food frequency questionnaire (LFFQ) is necessary in order to assess dietary lignans intake among Chinese breast cancer patients. This study was designed to validate a newly developed LFFQ to specially assess lignans intake among Chinese subjects. Methods The original study cohort consisted of 1,462 patients with early-stage breast cancer. 133 of these patients were recruited from the original study cohort; 103 of them completed all the assessments from 2015 to 2017 and were included in the present analysis. Two face-to-face interviews were conducted one year apart using a newly developed LFFQ (LFFQ1, LFFQ2). Twelve monthly 24-hour dietary recalls (24-h DRs) were conducted through telephone interview during the same 1-year period. Total lignans intake derived from the LFFQs and 24-h DRs, correlation coefficients and cross classification between the two LFFQs and between LFFQ and 24-h DR were examined. Results Median (IQR) intakes of total lignans for LFFQ1, LFFQ2 and 24-h DRs were 1.66 (1.17–2.15), 1.38 (1.01–2.01), and 0.97 (0.70–1.31) mg/day, respectively. The energy-adjusted validity between LFFQ2 and 24-h DRs was 0.67 (P < 0.001) for log-transformed lignans intake. The reproducibility between lignans intake assessed by the two LFFQs was 0.43 (P < 0.001) for energy-adjusted lignans intake after log transformation. Bland-Altman analysis showed an acceptable agreement between methods (LFFQ and 24-h DR). Correct classification of participants into the same quartiles of energy-adjusted lignans intake after log transformation between LFFQ2 and 24-h DRs and between LFFQs were 42.7% and 37.9%, respectively. Misclassification rates of participants into extreme quartiles were 1.0% and 4.9%, respectively. Conclusion The newly developed LFFQ has acceptable validity and reproducibility, and thus could be regarded as a reasonable and useful instrument in the assessment of dietary lignans intake among Hong Kong Chinese women with early-stage breast cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".