ArticleNutrients2022
Performance of the Digital Dietary Assessment Tool MyFoodRepo.
Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal nutrition analysis associates dietary regularity and quality with gut microbiome diversity: insights from the Food & You digital cohort.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- The nutritional and metabolic impact of night shift work in a real-world setting.Npj biological timing and sleep · 2026Article
- Advances and opportunities in measuring dietary intake: from omics to AI.Nature metabolism · 2026Review
- Reframing precision nutrition in irritable bowel syndrome: a mechanism-informed conceptual framework for responder prediction and clinical translation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Genomics of host-microbiome interactions in humans.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Application of an Ecological Approach to Assessment of Nutrition in School-Aged Children-A Report from the "Biomarkers of Nutrition for Development: Knowledge Indicating Dietary Sufficiency (BOND-KIDS)" Project Working Group 3.The Journal of nutrition · 2025Review
- Minimum days estimation for reliable dietary intake information: findings from a digital cohort.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Metagenomic estimation of dietary intake from human stool.Nature metabolism · 2025Article
- The metabolic and circadian signatures of gestational diabetes in the postpartum period characterised using multiple wearable devices.Diabetologia · 2025Observational
- Barriers and facilitators to non-pharmacological management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- The future backbone of nutritional science: integrating public health priorities with system-oriented precision nutrition.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Review
- Digital Dietary Behaviors in Individuals With Depression: Real-World Behavioral Observation.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Metagenomic estimation of dietary intake from human stool.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- NutriGreen image dataset: a collection of annotated nutrition, organic, and vegan food products.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Food & You: A digital cohort on personalized nutrition.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- The Bland-Altman method should not be used when one of the two measurement methods has negligible measurement errors.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital dietary assessment devices could help overcome the limitations of traditional tools to assess dietary intake in clinical and/or epidemiological studies. We evaluated the accuracy of the automated dietary app MyFoodRepo (MFR) against controlled reference values from weighted food diaries (WFD). MFR's capability to identify, classify and analyze the content of 189 different records was assessed using Cohen and uniform kappa coefficients and linear regressions. MFR identified 98.0% ± 1.5 of all edible components and was not affected by increasing numbers of ingredients. Linear regression analysis showed wide limits of agreement between MFR and WFD methods to estimate energy, carbohydrates, fat, proteins, fiber and alcohol contents of all records and a constant overestimation of proteins, likely reflecting the overestimation of portion sizes for meat, fish and seafood. The MFR mean portion size error was 9.2% ± 48.1 with individual errors ranging between -88.5% and +242.5% compared to true values. Beverages were impacted by the app's difficulty in correctly identifying the nature of liquids (41.9% ± 17.7 of composed beverages correctly classified). Fair estimations of portion size by MFR, along with its strong segmentation and classification capabilities, resulted in a generally good agreement between MFR and WFD which would be suited for the identification of dietary patterns, eating habits and regime types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.