Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38999814›Full record

ArticleNutrients2024

The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Nutrition Research: A Scoping Review.

Andrea Sosa-Holwerda, Oak-Hee Park, Kembra Albracht-Schulte, Surya Niraula, Leslie Thompson, Wilna Oldewage-Theron

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Andrea Sosa-HolwerdaDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-2152-2242
Oak-Hee ParkCollege of Health & Human Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Kembra Albracht-SchulteDepartment of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Surya NiraulaDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2973-6233
Leslie ThompsonDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Wilna Oldewage-TheronDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8975-5693

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems doing tasks that usually need human intelligence. AI is constantly changing and is revolutionizing the healthcare field, including nutrition. This review's purpose is four-fold: (i) to investigate AI's role in nutrition research; (ii) to identify areas in nutrition using AI; (iii) to understand AI's future potential impact; (iv) to investigate possible concerns about AI's use in nutrition research. Eight databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Agricola, Scopus, IEEE Explore, Google Scholar and Cochrane. A total of 1737 articles were retrieved, of which 22 were included in the review. Article screening phases included duplicates elimination, title-abstract selection, full-text review, and quality assessment. The key findings indicated AI's role in nutrition is at a developmental stage, focusing mainly on dietary assessment and less on malnutrition prediction, lifestyle interventions, and diet-related diseases comprehension. Clinical research is needed to determine AI's intervention efficacy. The ethics of AI use, a main concern, remains unresolved and needs to be considered for collateral damage prevention to certain populations. The studies' heterogeneity in this review limited the focus on specific nutritional areas. Future research should prioritize specialized reviews in nutrition and dieting for a deeper understanding of AI's potential in human nutrition.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchHumansNutritional SciencesAI in nutritionAI-nutritionistartificial intelligenceartificial intelligence and dietary assessmentchatbot

Identifiers

PMID38999814
PMCPMC11243505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.