ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Artificial intelligence in food and nutrition evidence: The challenges and opportunities.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to Improve Evidence Synthesis Production Efficiency: An Observational Study of Resource Use and Time-to-Completion.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- The state of food composition databases: data attributes and FAIR data harmonization in the era of digital innovation.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Can artificial intelligence uncover the bioactive peptides' benefits for human health and knowledge? A narrative review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Science-informed decisions are best guided by the objective synthesis of the totality of evidence around a particular question and assessing its trustworthiness through systematic processes. However, there are major barriers and challenges that limit science-informed food and nutrition policy, practice, and guidance. First, insufficient evidence, primarily due to acquisition cost of generating high-quality data, and the complexity of the diet-disease relationship. Furthermore, the sheer number of systematic reviews needed across the entire agriculture and food value chain, and the cost and time required to conduct them, can delay the translation of science to policy. Artificial intelligence offers the opportunity to (i) better understand the complex etiology of diet-related chronic diseases, (ii) bring more precision to our understanding of the variation among individuals in the diet-chronic disease relationship, (iii) provide new types of computed data related to the efficacy and effectiveness of nutrition/food interventions in health promotion, and (iv) automate the generation of systematic reviews that support timely decisions. These advances include the acquisition and synthesis of heterogeneous and multimodal datasets. This perspective summarizes a meeting convened at the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The purpose of the meeting was to examine the current state and future potential of artificial intelligence in generating new types of computed data as well as automating the generation of systematic reviews to support evidence-based food and nutrition policy, practice, and guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.