Nutrient estimation from an FFQ developed for a black Zimbabwean population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information in the literature on methods of food composition database development to calculate nutrient intake from food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) data. The aim of this study is to describe the development of an FFQ and a food composition table to calculate nutrient intake in a Black Zimbabwean population.Trained interviewers collected 24-hour dietary recalls (24 hr DR) from high and low income families in urban and rural Zimbabwe. Based on these data and input from local experts we developed an FFQ, containing a list of frequently consumed foods, standard portion sizes, and categories of consumption frequency. We created a food composition table of the foods found in the FFQ so that we could compute nutrient intake. We used the USDA nutrient database as the main resource because it is relatively complete, updated, and easily accessible. To choose the food item in the USDA nutrient database that most closely matched the nutrient content of the local food we referred to a local food composition table.Almost all the participants ate sadza (maize porridge) at least 5 times a week, and about half had matemba (fish) and caterpillar more than once a month. Nutrient estimates obtained from the FFQ data by using the USDA and Zimbabwean food composition tables were similar for total energy intake intra class correlation (ICC) = 0.99, and carbohydrate (ICC = 0.99), but different for vitamin A (ICC = 0.53), and total folate (ICC = 0.68).We have described a standardized process of FFQ and food composition database development for a Black Zimbabwean population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".