ArticleNutrition research and practice2025
Evaluating food portion estimation accuracy with multi-angle photographs.
Article in Nutrition research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the validity of estimating food quantities using photographs taken at different angles to increase the accuracy of dietary intake surveys. SUBJECTS/
methodsEighty-two adults (41 males and 41 females), ranging in age from their 20s to 50s, participated in the study. The participants observed 6 types of food-cooked rice, soup, grilled fish, vegetables, kimchi, and beverages-arranged to simulate an actual meal. After a 3-min observation, they were asked to move to another room and select a photograph that they believed matched the observed food amount. Photographs of each food were taken from 3 different angles (0°, 45°, 70° for solid foods; 45°, 60°, 70° for beverages). The accuracy, underestimation, and overestimation rates were calculated for each type of food and angle.
resultsCooked rice had the highest accuracy at 45° (74.4%) (
conclusionThe accuracy of food quantity estimation varies depending on the type of food and the shooting angle. For solid foods, 45° provided the best accuracy, whereas 70° was most accurate for beverages. Combining different angles improved the estimation accuracy for most food 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.