MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203069855 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2021-024

Telephone Administration of the Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment in Older Adults: Lessons Learned

2021· article· en· W3203069855 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cindy Wei, Justin B. Wagler, Isabel B. Rodrigues, Lora Giangregorio, Heather Keller, Lehana Thabane, Marina Mourtzakis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsImpactResearch Institute for AgingMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneMedicineTelephone interviewGerontologyMorningFood intakeMobile phonePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated Self-Administered 24-hour Dietary Assessment (ASA24) is an economical method of estimating dietary intake as nutrient analysis is automated, but its use in older adults is limited. The purpose of this work was to guide dietitians and future researchers on how to use the ASA24 with older adults, considering potential barriers encountered and strategies used to support completion based on our experience using this tool in a pilot clinical trial. ASA24 was completed by phone interview with 39 older adults. Challenges included: recalling food intake in detail, recording frequent eating occasions and complicated recipes, and general problems with communication. Strategies to support collection included making morning phone calls and suggesting that seniors write down the food consumed. Phone interviews were acceptable to older adults, but sufficient time was required. Dietitians and future researchers can use these findings to obtain dietary intake data from this hard-to-reach group.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207