Food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) for children under the age of two years: two validation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To validate a FFQ using questionnaires of complementary feeding practices (CFP), a 24‐hour recall (R24‐Hr), and blood nutrient levels in healthy children under the age of 2 yrs. Methods We interviewed 90 mother‐child pairs using CFP at ages 3,6,9 months and R24‐Hr given on 2 nonconsecutive days at 12,18 and 24 months of ages and a FFQ administered 4–6 years later, querying on diet in the 1 st (YR1) and 2 nd yr (YR2) of life. We queried 61 additional Mothers with FFQ and measured blood from their healthy child (age 1–5 years) for plasma B6, B12 and erythrocyte (RBC) folate levels with microbial & radio‐immuno assays. Data analysis used Spearman correlation and Wilcoxon tests. Results CFP correlated highly with FFQ for age of introduction of food and type of food consumed in YR1. In YR2 of life, energy intake in the R24‐Hr and FFQ were similar, and correlations after energy adjustment were significant for B12 (r=0.25, p<0.05) and borderline for B6 (r=0.18,p=0.9). After including supplement intake, correlations were: r=0.74 for folate, r=0.81 for B6 and r=0.29 for B12 (p<0.001 for each). RBC folate correlated with FFQ folate in YR2, (r=0.29, p<0.06). Correlations for Plasma and FFQ B6 were r=0.28(p<0.03) in YR1, r=0.31 (p<0.02) in YR2; for B12 r=0.51(p<0.001) in YR1 and r=0.38, (p=0.003) in YR2. This FFQ administered at ages 4–6 years provides a reasonable estimate of intake of key micronutrients during the first 2 yrs of life.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".