SynthesisThe British journal of nutrition2025
Validity and accuracy of artificial intelligence-based dietary intake assessment methods: a systematic review.
Synthesis in The British journal of nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Generative AI in Precision Nutrition: A Review of Current Developments and Future Directions.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Digital Health in Obesity Care: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Advances and opportunities in measuring dietary intake: from omics to AI.Nature metabolism · 2026Review
- Reducing bias and enhancing equity in AI-enabled precision nutrition: addressing measurement error across wearables, multiomics, and dietary data.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Precision nutrition in diabetic foot ulcers: multimodal artificial intelligence for personalized metabolic management.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Large Language Models for Real-World Nutrition Assessment: Structured Prompts, Multi-Model Validation and Expert Oversight.Nutrients · 2025Article
- An Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Smartphone Application for Improving Dietary Quality Among Frail Older Adults: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nutrigenomics meets multi-omics: integrating genetic, metabolic, and microbiome data for personalized nutrition strategies.Genes & 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most significant challenges in research related to nutritional epidemiology is the achievement of high accuracy and validity of dietary data to establish an adequate link between dietary exposure and health outcomes. Recently, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in various fields has filled this gap with advanced statistical models and techniques for nutrient and food analysis. We aimed to systematically review available evidence regarding the validity and accuracy of AI-based dietary intake assessment methods (AI-DIA). In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, an exhaustive search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify relevant publications from their inception to 1 December 2024. Thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Of the studies identified, 61·5 % were conducted in preclinical settings. Likewise, 46·2 % used AI techniques based on deep learning and 15·3 % on machine learning. Correlation coefficients of over 0·7 were reported in six articles concerning the estimation of calories between the AI and traditional assessment methods. Similarly, six studies obtained a correlation above 0·7 for macronutrients. In the case of micronutrients, four studies achieved the correlation mentioned above. A moderate risk of bias was observed in 61·5 % (
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.