Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Models Using Food Intake Frequency Versus Vegetable Intake Data to Predict Problematic Mealtime Behaviour in Japanese Preschool Children Cover

Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Models Using Food Intake Frequency Versus Vegetable Intake Data to Predict Problematic Mealtime Behaviour in Japanese Preschool Children

Open Access
|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Distribution of ROC–AUC values by machine-learning model.Note: Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR) of ROC–AUC values across all configurations for each model, with horizontal lines indicating the median and whiskers extending to 1.5× IQR. The horizontal axis shows ROC–AUC (0–1), and models are arranged from lowest to highest median AUC. Naive Bayes and Neural Network achieved the highest central performance, whereas Random Forest and k-NN showed relatively lower discriminative ability.

Figure 2.

Feature occurrence across best-performing models using (A) Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) categories and (B) individual vegetable intake variables.Note: Each cell indicates whether a given feature was selected as important (black = included; white = excluded) in the best-performing model for each algorithm. Vegetable and sweetened beverage intake frequently appeared among FFQ-based models, while taro, spinach, and green onion were consistently selected in vegetable-based models, indicating robust predictive value across algorithms.

Figure 3.

Permutation importance in (A) FFQ-based model (Naïve Bayes) and (B) vegetable intake model (L1 logistic regression).Note: Bars indicate the mean decrease in model performance when each variable was permuted, representing its relative contribution to prediction accuracy. In the FFQ-based model (A), vegetable and sweetened beverage intake were the most important, whereas in the vegetable intake-based model (B), tomato, green onion, and taro were key predictors.

Comparison of machine learning algorithms for predicting selective eating in preschool children using food frequency data (5-fold cross-validation)_

ModelROC-AUCAccuracyPrecisionRecallF1 Score
Random Forest0.5220.5270.5810.6110.592
SVM0.5430.5590.5990.7220.645
Naïve Bayes0.6190.5780.6730.5530.578
Neural Network0.5530.5350.5840.6140.558
k-NN0.5190.5270.5830.5970.585
XGBoost0.5110.5200.5750.6040.585
XGBoost (limited depth)0.5210.5230.5770.6120.590
SGDClassifier0.5440.5370.5950.6120.585
L1 LogisticRegression0.6180.5850.6220.7310.663
Logistic Regression0.6150.5820.6210.7180.658
LightGBM0.5140.5270.5750.6500.605

Food and vegetable frequency per week_

VariablesControl (n = 121)Selective eating (n = 162)P value

Demographic variables Age, years Male, %4.6 ± 1.0 59.5%4.6 ± 0.9 57.4%0.562 0.808
FFQ
Rice12.7 ± 3.112.4 ± 3.10.403
Bread5.1 ± 2.95.2 ± 2.60.887
Noodle1.8 ±1.11.7 ± 1.50.963
Fish2.6 ± 1.62.5 ± 2.00.677
Meat5.5 ± 3.25.0 ± 2.70.158
Eggs3.6 ± 2.33.2 ± 2.60.109
Beans/tofu3.7 ± 2.63.1 ± 2.70.063
Vegetable11.2 ± 3.99.0 ± 5.0<0.001*
Fruit5.5 ± 4.04.0 ± 3.20.001*
Dairy products8.1 ± 4.38.1 ± 4.30.931
Tea12.9 ± 3.412.7 ± 3.00.682
Sweetened beverage2.1 ± 2.33.5 ± 3.3<0.001*
Snack4.9 ± 2.95.3 ± 3.60.323
Instant foods0.4 ± 0.50.5 ± 0.60.846
Fast foods0.5 ± 0.40.7 ± 0.70.015*

Designated vegetables
Cabbage2.6 ± 1.91.7 ± 1.5<0.001*
Cucumber3.0 ± 2.42.2 ± 1.80.001*
Taro0.7 ± 0.70.3 ± 0.5<0.001*
Daikon radish1.8 ± 1.51.3 ± 1.40.002*
Tomato3.9 ± 3.32.2 ± 2.5<0.001*
Eggplant1.4 ± 1.40.8 ± 1.1<0.001*
Carrot4.4 ± 2.73.8 ± 2.60.033*
Green onion1.9 ± 1.71.1 ± 1.4<0.001*
Chinese cabbage1.6 ± 1.61.0 ± 1.2<0.0001*
Green pepper1.5 ± 1.30.9 ± 1.2<0.001*
Lettuce1.9 ± 2.21.0 ± 1.4<0.001*
Onion4.7 ± 2.73.6 ± 2.50.001*
Potato3.1 ± 2.12.2 ± 1.7<0.001*
Spinach2.3 ± 1.61.6 ± 1.6<0.001*
Broccoli.3.0 ± 2.02.1 ± 2.0<0.001*

Comparison of machine learning algorithms for predicting selective eating in preschool children using vegetable frequency data (5-fold cross-validation)_

ModelROC-AUCAccuracyPrecisionRecallF1 Score
Random Forest0.6680.6240.6730.6740.681
SVM0.6760.6230.6910.6530.747
Naïve Bayes0.7020.6380.7220.6480.823
Neural Network0.6560.6020.6330.6520.678
k-NN0.6330.6030.6570.6530.673
XGBoost0.6490.6120.6590.6640.663
XGBoost (limited depth)0.6600.6140.6620.6660.667
SGDClassifier0.6300.5950.6380.6470.661
L1 LogisticRegression0.7170.6470.7220.6590.808
Logistic Regression0.7150.6460.7190.6610.798
LightGBM0.6950.6390.6850.6900.691
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34763/jmotherandchild.20263001.d-25-00036 | Journal eISSN: 2719-535X | Journal ISSN: 2719-6488
Language: English
Page range: 106 - 115
Submitted on: Sep 10, 2025
Accepted on: Dec 5, 2025
Published on: Jun 8, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Naoki Sakane, Yaeko Kawaguchi, Junichiro Somei, Akiko Suganuma, Masayuki Domichi, published by Institute of Mother and Child
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.