Diet to Data: Validation of a Bias-Mitigating Nutritional Screener Using Assembly Theory
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (PREreview)
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Traditional dietary screeners face significant limitations: they rely on subjective self-reporting, average intake estimates, and are influenced by a participant’s awareness of being observed—each of which can distort results. These factors reduce both accuracy and reproducibility. The Guide Against Age-Related Disease (GARD) addresses these issues by applying Assembly Theory to objectively quantify food and food behavior (FFB) complexity. This study aims to validate the GARD as a structured, bias-resistant tool for dietary assessment in clinical and research settings. Methods: The GARD survey was administered in an internal medicine clinic within a suburban hospital system in the southeastern U.S. The tool assessed six daily eating windows, scoring high-complexity FFBs (e.g., fresh plants, social eating, fasting) as +1 and low-complexity FFBs (e.g., ultra-processed foods, refined ingredients, distracted eating) as –1. To minimize bias, patients were unaware of scoring criteria and reported only what they ate the previous day, avoiding broad averages. A computer algorithm then scored responses based on complexity, independent of dietary guidelines. Internal (face, convergent, and discriminant) validity was assessed using Spearman rho correlations. Results: Face validation showed high inter-rater agreement using predefined Assembly Index (Ai) and Copy Number (Ni) thresholds. Positive correlations were found between high-complexity diets and behaviors (rho = 0.533–0.565, p < 0.001), while opposing constructs showed moderate negative correlations (rho = –0.363 to −0.425, p < 0.05). GARD scores aligned with established diet patterns: Mediterranean diets averaged +22; Standard American Diet averaged −10.
Article activity feed
-
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17246530.
I want to start by thanking the authors of this article for using innovative approaches to study dietary intake, presenting a simplified, validated tool for measuring nutritional intake.
My comments are basic.
Abstract
I could not find a conclusion related to the findings presented in the results.
Main body
In the Methods section, it is standard practice to report procedures using the past tense, as they describe actions that have already been completed. The authors are therefore encouraged to revise this section, accordingly, replacing future tense constructions where appropriate.
Additionally, the age groups of the study population were not clearly specified. Including this information is …
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/17246530.
I want to start by thanking the authors of this article for using innovative approaches to study dietary intake, presenting a simplified, validated tool for measuring nutritional intake.
My comments are basic.
Abstract
I could not find a conclusion related to the findings presented in the results.
Main body
In the Methods section, it is standard practice to report procedures using the past tense, as they describe actions that have already been completed. The authors are therefore encouraged to revise this section, accordingly, replacing future tense constructions where appropriate.
Additionally, the age groups of the study population were not clearly specified. Including this information is essential for characterizing the sample and enhancing the interpretability of the findings.
In the Results section, it is considered good practice, particularly in similar studies, to present descriptive statistics (e.g., age distribution, gender, baseline characteristics) for the study participants. This allows readers to better understand the context and composition of the sample. The authors are advised to incorporate these details into the Results and to describe the corresponding procedures for collecting and analyzing this data in the Methods section.
Finally, the authors should report whether all recruited participants completed the study, as well as provide information on the duration of the study. These details are important for assessing study completeness, validity, and generalizability.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.
-
-