Assessing the relative validity of a web-based self-administered 24-hour dietary recall in a Canadian adolescent’s population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthy eating habits at a young age are crucial to support growth and development and good general health. In this context, monitoring youth dietary intakes adequately with valid tools is important to develop efficient interventions and identify groups that are more at risk of inadequate intakes. This study aimed to assess the relative validity of the self-administered web-based 24-h dietary recall (R24W) for evaluating energy and nutrient intakes among active adolescents. METHODS: Participants were invited to complete one interviewer-administered 24-h dietary dietary recall and the R24W on up to three occasions within one month. A total of 272 French-speaking active adolescents aged 12 to 17 years from the province of Québec were invited to complete three R24W and one interview-administered 24-h recall. Student's t-test and correlations were conducted on sex-adjusted data. Percent differences, cross-classification (percentage of agreement), weighted Kappa and Bland-Altman plots were calculated. RESULTS: Mean (SD) energy intake from the R24W was 8.8% higher than from the interview-administered 24-h dietary recall (2558 kcal ± 1128 vs. 2444 kcal ± 998, p < 0.05). Significant differences in mean nutrient intake between the R24W and the interview-administered 24-h dietary recall ranged from 6.5% for % E from fat (p < 0.05) to 25.2% for saturated fat (p < 0.001), i.e., higher values with R24W. Sex-adjusted correlations were significant for all nutrients except for % E from proteins and thiamin (range: 0.24 to 0.52, p < 0.01). Cross-classification demonstrated that 36.6% of the participants were classified in the same fourth with both methods, 39.6% in the adjacent fourth, and 5.7% misclassified. Bland-Atman plots revealed proportional bias between the two methods for 7/25 nutrients. Completing at least two recalls with the R24W increased the precision of intake estimates. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the R24W presents an acceptable relative validity compared to a standard interview-administered 24-h recall for estimating energy and most nutrients in a cohort of French-speaking adolescents from the province of Québec.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".