MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6902436852 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.6730958

Validation of a self-administered version of the Mediterranean diet scale (MDS) for cardiac rehabilitation patients in Canada

2018· article· en· W6902436852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediterranean dietRehabilitationConstruct validityScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)Content validityIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mediterranean dietary pattern has been linked with lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and the Mediterranean diet scale (MDS) has been created to incorporate and test the inherent characteristics of this dietary pattern. This study aimed to psychometrically validate a self-administered version of the MDS in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) patients in Canada. To establish content validity, the scale was reviewed by an expert interdisciplinary panel. A final version of the tool was tested in 150 CR patients. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.69. All ICC coefficients met the minimum recommended standard. Factor analysis revealed four factors, all internally consistent. Criterion validity was supported by significant differences in total scores by duration in CR. Construct validity was supported by agreements between the self-administered MDS and original MDS in all items and with the 3-day food record in 8 of 13 items. In conclusion, the self-administered version of the MDS demonstrated good reliability and validity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→