Avalilação PREreview de Diet to Data: From Qualitative Eating to Quantified Di-et—Development and Validation of a Bias-Resistant Nutrition-al Screener

 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.