MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376108393 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2023-0018

The Canadian Food Intake Screener for assessing alignment of adults’ dietary intake with the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide healthy food choices recommendations: scoring system and construct validity

2023· article· en· W4376108393 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Joy M. Hutchinson, Kevin W. Dodd, Patricia M. Guenther, Benoı̂t Lamarche, Jess Haines, Angela Wallace, Maude Perreault, Tabitha E. Williams, Maria Laura da Costa Louzada, Mahsa Jessri, Simone Lemieux, Dana Lee Olstad, Rachel Prowse, Janis Randall Simpson, Jennifer E. Vena, Kathleen Szajbely, Sharon I. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of CalgaryUniversité LavalUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth CanadaOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsFood intakeMedicineEnvironmental healthConstruct validityFood groupFood choiceFood frequency questionnaireGerontologyDemographyPsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Food Intake Screener/Questionnaire court canadien sur les apports alimentaires was developed to rapidly assess alignment of adults’ dietary intake over the past month with the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide’s healthy food choices recommendations. From July to December 2021, adults ( n = 154) aged 18–65 years completed the screener and up to two 24 h dietary recalls. The screener scoring system was aligned with the Healthy Eating Food Index-2019 (HEFI-2019), to the extent possible. Analysis of variance compared screener scores among subgroups with known differences in diet quality. Using the recall data, the National Cancer Institute multivariate method was used to model HEFI-2019 components, with the screener score as a covariate, and the correlation coefficient between screener and total HEFI-2019 scores was estimated. The mean screener score was 35 points (SD = 4.7; maximum 65), ranging from 26 (1st percentile) to 45 (99th percentile). Differences in scores in hypothesized directions were evident by gender identity ( p = 0.06), perceived income adequacy ( p = 0.07), education ( p = 0.02), and smoking status ( p = 0.003). The correlation between screener and HEFI-2019 scores was 0.53 (SE = 0.12). The screener’s moderate construct validity supports its use for rapid assessment of alignment of adults’ intake with the healthy food choices recommendations when comprehensive dietary assessment is not possible. Novelty The Canadian Food Intake Screener was developed to rapidly assess alignment of dietary intake with the Canada’s Food Guide-2019 healthy food choices recommendations. Scoring is aligned with the Healthy Eating Food Index-2019 to the extent possible. Among a sample of adults, reasonable variation in screener scores was noted, mean screener scores differed between some subgroups with known differences in diet quality, and a moderate correlation between screener scores and total Healthy Eating Food Index-2019 scores based on repeat 24 h dietary recalls was observed. The Canadian Food Intake Screener has moderate construct validity for rapid assessment of overall alignment of adults’ dietary intake with the Canada’s Food Guide-2019 healthy food choices recommendations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207