Prediction of Snacking Behavior Involving Snacks Having High Levels of Saturated Fats, Salt, or Sugar Using Only Information on Previous Instances of Snacking: Survey- and App-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consuming high amounts of foods or beverages with high levels of saturated fats, salt, or sugar (HFSS) can be harmful for health. Many snacks fall into this category (HFSS snacks). However, the palatability of these snacks means that people can sometimes struggle to reduce their intake. Machine learning algorithms could help in predicting the likely occurrence of HFSS snacking so that just-in-time adaptive interventions can be deployed. However, HFSS snacking data have certain characteristics, such as sparseness and incompleteness, which make snacking prediction a challenge for machine learning approaches. Previous attempts have employed several potential predictor variables and have achieved considerable success. Nevertheless, collecting information from several dimensions requires several potentially burdensome user questionnaires, and thus, this approach may be less acceptable for the general public. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to consider the capacity of standard (unmodified in any way; to tailor to the specific learning problem) machine learning algorithms to predict HFSS snacking based on the following minimal data that can be collected in a mostly automated way: day of the week, time of the day (divided into time bins), and location (divided into work, home, and other). METHODS: A total of 111 participants in the United Kingdom were asked to record HFSS snacking occurrences and the location category over a period of 28 days, and this was considered the UK dataset. Data collection was facilitated by a purpose-specific app (Snack Tracker). Additionally, a similar dataset from the Netherlands was used (Dutch dataset). Both datasets were analyzed using machine learning methods, including random forest regressor, Extreme Gradient Boosting regressor, feed forward neural network, and long short-term memory. We additionally employed 2 baseline statistical models for prediction. In all cases, the prediction problem was the time to the next HFSS snack from the current one, and the evaluation metric was the mean absolute error. RESULTS: The ability of machine learning methods to predict the time of the next HFSS snack was assessed. The quality of the prediction depended on the dataset, temporal resolution, and machine learning algorithm employed. In some cases, predictions were accurate to as low as 17 minutes on average. In general, machine learning methods outperformed the baseline models, but no machine learning method was clearly better than the others. Feed forward neural network showed a very marginal advantage. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction of HFSS snacking using sparse data is possible with reasonable accuracy. Our findings offer a foundation for further exploring how machine learning methods can be used in health psychology and provide directions for further research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".