Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38026571›Full record

ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2023

Validity of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Application to Identify Foods and Estimate Energy Intake Among Adults: A Pilot Study.

Chloe P Lozano, Emma N Canty, Sanjoy Saha, Stephanie T Broyles, Robbie A Beyl, John W Apolzan, Corby K Martin

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05343585 (Testing the Validity of an Artificial Intelligence-based Program to Identify Foods and Estimate Food Portion Size Among Adults, a Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05343585 nacompletednot on this map

Testing the Validity of an Artificial Intelligence-based Program to Identify Foods and Estimate Food Portion Size Among Adults, a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorPennington Biomedical Research CenterRan2022 to 2022Enrolled24ConditionsNutrition AssessmentArmsPortionSize AI
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chloe P LozanoPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Emma N CantyPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Sanjoy SahaPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Stephanie T BroylesPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Robbie A BeylPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
John W ApolzanPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.
Corby K MartinPennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, United States.

Funding

Research BaseP30DK072476 · NIDDK · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI Peter Todd Katzmarzyk · 2005 to 2026
$26.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK072476
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The commercial application Openfit allows for automatic identification and quantification of food intake through short video capture without a physical reference marker. There are no known peer-reviewed publications on the validity of this Nutrition Artificial Intelligence (AI). Objectives: To test the validity of Openfit to identify food automatically and semiautomatically (with user correction), test the validity of Openfit at quantifying energy intake (kcal) automatically and semiautomatically, and assess satisfaction and usability of Openfit. Methods: During a laboratory-based visit, adults (7 male and 17 female), used Openfit to automatically and semiautomatically record provided meals, which were covertly weighed. Foods logged were identified as an "exact match," "far match," or an "intrusion" using Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) codes. Descriptive data were stratified by meal, food item, and FNDDS group, and presented with or without beverages. Bland-Altman analyses assessed errors over levels of energy intake. Participants completed a User Satisfaction Survey (USS) and the Computer Systems Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ). Open-ended questions were assessed with qualitative methods. Results: Exact matches, far matches, and intrusions were 46%, 41%, and 13% for automated identification, and 87%, 23%, and 0% for semiautomated identification, respectively. Error for automated and semiautomated energy estimates were 43% and 33% with beverages, and 16% and 42% without beverages. Bland-Altman analyses indicated larger error for higher energy meals. Overall mean scores were 2.4 for the CSUQ and subscale means scores ranged from 4.1 to 5.5. for the USS. Participants recommended improvements to Openfit's Nutrition AI, manual estimation, and overall app. Conclusion: Openfit worked relatively well for automatically and semiautomatically identifying foods. Error in automated energy estimates was relatively high; however, after excluding beverages, error was relatively low (16%). For semiautomated energy estimates, error was comparable to previous studies. Improvements to the Nutrition AI, manual estimation and overall application may increase Openfit's usability and validity.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT05343585.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedietary assessmentenergy intakeidentificationmobile applicationpilot studyvalidity

Identifiers

PMID38026571
PMCPMC10656219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.