Validation of a parent proxy-reported beverage screener compared to a 24-hour dietary recall for the measurement of sugar-containing beverage intake among young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures that can provide reasonably accurate estimates of sugar-containing beverage (SCB) intake among children are needed. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the relative validity of a short beverage screener (Nutrition and Health Questionnaire, NHQ) compared to a 24-hour recall (Automated Self-Administered 24-h (ASA24) Dietary Assessment Tool-Canada) for assessing parent proxy-reported daily SCB intake among children aged 4-14 years from the TARGet Kids! research network in Toronto, Canada. Children for whom a NHQ completed between March 2018 and June 2019 and an ASA24 completed within one year were included. A total of 471 parents who completed the NHQ beverage screener were also asked to complete the ASA24. One-hundred sixty-three completed the ASA24 and of this group, 109 were analyzed. Estimates of daily intake of 100% juices, sweetened drinks and soda, and total SCBs from the two measures were compared. The mean difference in beverage intake, Spearman correlations, and Bland-Altman plots were estimated for continuous measures. The kappa coefficient, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for dichotomous measures of any daily intake versus none. The mean difference in total SCB intake between the NHQ and ASA24 was 0.14 cups/day (95% CI 0.01, 0.29) and the correlation was 0.43 (95% CI 0.26, 0.57). Sensitivity and specificity for any daily SCB intake were 0.63 and 0.76, respectively. Overall, parent proxy-reporting of children's total SCB intake from a beverage screener can provide reasonable estimates of SCB intake when detailed dietary assessment is not feasible.
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 | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".