Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39608003›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Artificial Intelligence Applications to Measure Food and Nutrient Intakes: Scoping Review.

Jiakun Zheng, Junjie Wang, Jing Shen, Ruopeng An

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Jiakun Zheng *School of Economics and Management, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3054-1823
Junjie Wang *School of Kinesiology and Health Promotion, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2270-7245
Jing ShenDepartment of Physical Education, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9751-5454
Ruopeng AnSilver School of Social Work, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9632-0209

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate measurement of food and nutrient intake is crucial for nutrition research, dietary surveillance, and disease management, but traditional methods such as 24-hour dietary recalls, food diaries, and food frequency questionnaires are often prone to recall error and social desirability bias, limiting their reliability. With the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), there is potential to overcome these limitations through automated, objective, and scalable dietary assessment techniques. However, the effectiveness and challenges of AI applications in this domain remain inadequately explored.

objectiveThis study aimed to conduct a scoping review to synthesize existing literature on the efficacy, accuracy, and challenges of using AI tools in assessing food and nutrient intakes, offering insights into their current advantages and areas of improvement.

methodsThis review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 4 databases-PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EBSCO-covering publications from the databases' inception to June 30, 2023. Studies were included if they used modern AI approaches to assess food and nutrient intakes in human subjects.

resultsThe 25 included studies, published between 2010 and 2023, involved sample sizes ranging from 10 to 38,415 participants. These studies used a variety of input data types, including food images (n=10), sound and jaw motion data from wearable devices (n=9), and text data (n=4), with 2 studies combining multiple input types. AI models applied included deep learning (eg, convolutional neural networks), machine learning (eg, support vector machines), and hybrid approaches. Applications were categorized into dietary intake assessment, food detection, nutrient estimation, and food intake prediction. Food detection accuracies ranged from 74% to 99.85%, and nutrient estimation errors varied between 10% and 15%. For instance, the RGB-D (Red, Green, Blue-Depth) fusion network achieved a mean absolute error of 15% in calorie estimation, and a sound-based classification model reached up to 94% accuracy in detecting food intake based on jaw motion and chewing patterns. In addition, AI-based systems provided real-time monitoring capabilities, improving the precision of dietary assessments and demonstrating the potential to reduce recall bias typically associated with traditional self-report methods.

conclusionsWhile AI demonstrated significant advantages in improving accuracy, reducing labor, and enabling real-time monitoring, challenges remain in adapting to diverse food types, ensuring algorithmic fairness, and addressing data privacy concerns. The findings suggest that AI has transformative potential for dietary assessment at both individual and population levels, supporting precision nutrition and chronic disease management. Future research should focus on enhancing the robustness of AI models across diverse dietary contexts and integrating biological sensors for a holistic dietary assessment approach.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAdolescentAdultChildDeep LearningEatingFemaleHumansMaleNutrientsNutrition AssessmentNutrientsAIAI-basedartificial intelligencecomputer visiondeep learningdietdietary assessmentsdisease managementfoodfood intakemachine learningmeasurementmobile phonenatural language processingneural networksnutrientsystematic literature

Identifiers

PMID39608003
PMCPMC11638690

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.