| Literature DB >> 32508538 |
Maryam M Kheirollahpour1, Mahmoud M Danaee2, Amir Faisal A F Merican3,4, Asma Ahmad A A Shariff4,5.
Abstract
The importance of eating behavior risk factors in the primary prevention of obesity has been established. Researchers mostly use the linear model to determine associations among these risk factors. However, in reality, the presence of nonlinearity among these factors causes a bias in the prediction models. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of a hybrid model to predict the eating behaviors. The hybrid model of structural equation modelling (SEM) and artificial neural networks (ANN) was applied to evaluate the prediction model. The SEM analysis was used to check the relationship of the emotional eating scale (EES), body shape concern (BSC), and body appreciation scale (BAS) and their effect on different categories of eating behavior patterns (EBP). In the second step, the input and output required for ANN analysis were obtained from SEM analysis and were applied in the neural network model. 340 university students participated in this study. The hybrid model (SEM-ANN) was conducted using multilayer perceptron (MLP) with feed-forward network topology. Moreover, Levenberg-Marquardt, which is a supervised learning model, was applied as a learning method for MLP training. The tangent/sigmoid function was used for the input layer, while the linear function was applied for the output layer. The coefficient of determination (R 2) and mean square error (MSE) were calculated. Using the hybrid model, the optimal network happened at MLP 3-17-8. It was proved that the hybrid model was superior to SEM methods because the R 2 of the model was increased by 27%, while the MSE was decreased by 9.6%. Moreover, it was found that BSC, BAS, and EES significantly affected healthy and unhealthy eating behavior patterns. Thus, a hybrid approach could be suggested as a significant methodological contribution from a machine learning standpoint, and it can be implemented as software to predict models with the highest accuracy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32508538 PMCID: PMC7251460 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4194293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Conceptual frame of factors affecting EBP.
Literature review of SEM-ANN research.
| No | Research | Year | Hybrid model | Case study input | Evaluation criteria | Results and discussion | Statistical model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [ | 2016 | SEM-ANN | Students' intention towards academic use of Facebook |
| The hybrid model helps to better understand factors that predict the usage of Facebook in higher education | CB-SEM |
| 2 | [ | 2015 | SEM-ANN | Influence of SERVPERF on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty among low cost and full service | RMSEA | The use of the two-stage predictive-analytic SEM-neural network analysis may provide a more holistic understanding and thus may provide a significant methodological contribution from the statistical point of view | CB-SEM |
| 3 | [ | 2013 | SEM-ANN | Factors that influence consumers' mobile-commerce adoption intention | RMSEA | Employing a multianalytic approach demonstrated how combining two different data analysis approaches in either methodology and the alternative analysis is able to improve the validity and confidence in the results | CB-SEM |
| 4 | [ | 2012 | SEM-ANN | Adoption of an interorganizational system standard and its benefits by using RosettaNet | RMSEA | Improved existing technology adoption methodology was achieved by integrating both SEM and neural network for examining the adoptions of RosettaNet | CB-SEM |
| 5 | [ | 2014 | SEM-ANN | User's intention to adopt mobile learning, Malaysia | RMSEA | This has provided a novel perspective in examining the key determinants of m-learning acceptance, while a greater amount of variance was explained in this model | CB-SEM |
| 6 | [ | 2014 | SEM-ANN | Predictors of open interorganizational systems (IOS) adoption by using RosettaNet as a case study | RMSE | The neural network supports the antecedents of RosettaNet adoption in SMEs | PLS-SEM |
| 7 | [ | 2019 | SEM-ANN | Predict customers' intention to purchase battery electric | RMSE | A new approach solved the analytical problems in this research field | PLS-SEM |
Demographic characteristics.
| Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 24.32 | 3.6 |
| Range (22–36 years) | ||
| BMI | 23.8 | 4.95 |
| Range (15.98–41.69) | ||
| Frequency | % | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 154 | 45.29 |
| Female | 186 | 54.71 |
| Education level | ||
| Diploma | 2 | 0.59 |
| Baccalaureate | 234 | 68.82 |
| Doctor of philosophy | 89 | 26.18 |
| Postdoctoral | 15 | 4.41 |
| Total | 340 | 100 |
Exploratory data analysis of the dataset.
| Item | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Healthy eating | 3.093 | 0.859 |
| Emotional eating | 2.832 | 0.934 |
| Snacking | 2.799 | 0.87 |
| Eating outside | 2.794 | 0.908 |
| Planning for food | 2.980 | 0.519 |
| Low-fat eating | 2.953 | 0.702 |
| Cultural habit | 3.015 | 0.956 |
| Sweets | 2.818 | 0.861 |
| Meal skipping | 2.82 | 0.734 |
|
| ||
| Self-perception | 3.386 | 1.237 |
| Behavior adapt | 2.545 | 1.091 |
| Comparative behavior | 3.315 | 1.207 |
|
| ||
| General appreciation | 3.885 | 0.978 |
| Investment action | 3.643 | 1.044 |
|
| ||
| Depression/bored/lonely eating | 2.649 | 1.042 |
| Anxiety eating | 2.658 | 1.099 |
| Angry eating | 2.51 | 0.98 |
| Happy eating | 2.863 | 1.252 |
Figure 2Path model.
Results of bootstrapping for path analysis.
| Path | BSC | BA | EES | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBP categories | Beta |
| Beta |
| Beta |
|
| Eating out | 0.198 | ≤0.01 | −0.327 | ≤0.01 | 0.113 | 0.07 |
| Emotional eating | 0.239 | ≤0.01 | −0.119 | ≤0.05 | 0.447 | ≤0.01 |
| Healthy eating | −0.099 | 0.101 | 0.259 | ≤0.01 | −0.395 | ≤0.01 |
| Low fat | −0.154 | ≤0.01 | 0.432 | ≤0.01 | −0.126 | ≤0.05 |
| Meal skipping | 0.194 | ≤0.01 | −0.425 | ≤0.01 | 0.211 | ≤0.01 |
| Planning ahead | −0.079 | 0.212 | 0.472 | ≤0.01 | −0.122 | 0.08 |
| Snacking | 0.385 | ≤0.01 | −0.244 | ≤0.01 | 0.056 | 0.34 |
| Sweets | 0.173 | ≤0.01 | −0.236 | ≤0.01 | 0.218 | ≤0.01 |
BSC: body shape concern, BA: body appreciation, and EES: emotional eating scale.
Figure 3Network performance (R2).
Network performance (R2).
| No | Design MLP input-hidden-output | Training perf | Test perf | Validation perf |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MLP 3-10-8 | 0.640 | 0.562 | 0.521 |
| 2 | MLP 3-12-8 | 0.634 | 0.522 | 0.610 |
| 3 | MLP 3-13-8 | 0.647 | 0.584 | 0.547 |
| 4 | MLP 3-14-8 | 0.645 | 0.461 | 0.499 |
| 5 | MLP 3-15-8 | 0.687 | 0.508 | 0.477 |
| 6 | MLP 3-16-8 | 0.668 | 0.530 | 0.408 |
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 8 | MLP 3-18-8 | 0.636 | 0.581 | 0.591 |
| 9 | MLP 3-19-8 | 0.676 | 0.551 | 0.505 |
| 10 | MLP 3-20-8 | 0.675 | 0.482 | 0.538 |
Network error (MSE).
| No | Design MLP input-hidden-output | Training error | Test error | Validation error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MLP 3-10-8 | 0.550 | 0.730 | 0.726 |
| 2 | MLP 3-12-8 | 0.571 | 0.653 | 0.747 |
| 3 | MLP 3-13-8 | 0.584 | 0.636 | 0.750 |
| 4 | MLP 3-14-8 | 0.634 | 0.571 | 0.692 |
| 5 | MLP 3-15-8 | 0.520 | 0.750 | 0.701 |
| 6 | MLP 3-16-8 | 0.547 | 0.661 | 0.799 |
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 8 | MLP 3-18-8 | 0.577 | 0.623 | 0.677 |
| 9 | MLP 3-19-8 | 0.518 | 0.830 | 0.640 |
| 10 | MLP 3-20-8 | 0.534 | 0.685 | 0.738 |
Figure 4Network error MSE.
Figure 5Validation performance for MLP 3-17-8.
Figure 6Comparison of (a) MSE and (b) R2 of both models.