Improving Heart Disease Risk Through Quality-Focused Diet Logging: Pre-Post Study of a Diet Quality Tracking App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet-tracking mobile apps have gained increased interest from both academic and clinical fields. However, quantity-focused diet tracking (eg, calorie counting) can be time-consuming and tedious, leading to unsustained adoption. Diet quality-focusing on high-quality dietary patterns rather than quantifying diet into calories-has shown effectiveness in improving heart disease risk. The Healthy Heart Score (HHS) predicts 20-year cardiovascular risks based on the consumption of foods from quality-focused food categories, rather than detailed serving sizes. No studies have examined how mobile health (mHealth) apps focusing on diet quality can bring promising results in health outcomes and ease of adoption. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to design a mobile app to support the HHS-informed quality-focused dietary approach by enabling users to log simplified diet quality and view its real-time impact on future heart disease risks. Users were asked to log food categories that are the main predictors of the HHS. We measured the app's feasibility and efficacy in improving individuals' clinical and behavioral factors that affect future heart disease risks and app use. METHODS: We recruited 38 participants who were overweight or obese with high heart disease risk and who used the app for 5 weeks and measured weight, blood sugar, blood pressure, HHS, and diet score (DS)-the measurement for diet quality-at baseline and week 5 of the intervention. RESULTS: =2.41; P=.02) at week 5, although only 10 participants (10/38, 26%) checked their HHS risk scores more than once. Other outcomes, including weight, blood sugar, and blood pressure, did not show significant changes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that our logging tool significantly improved dietary choices. Participants were not interested in seeing the HHS and perceived logging diet categories irrelevant to improving the HHS as important. We discuss the complexities of addressing health risks and quantity- versus quality-based health monitoring and incorporating secondary behavior change goals that matter to users when designing mHealth apps.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".