Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40207441›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of nutrition2025

Validity and accuracy of artificial intelligence-based dietary intake assessment methods: a systematic review.

Sebastián Cofre, Camila Sanchez, Gladys Quezada-Figueroa, Xaviera A López-Cortés

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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.

Sebastián CofreSchool of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4899-7941
Camila SanchezDepartment of Pre-Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile.
Gladys Quezada-FigueroaPhD in Epidemiology Program, School of Public Health, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Xaviera A López-CortésDepartment of Computer Sciences and Industries, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDietNutrition AssessmentHumansReproducibility of ResultsAccuracyArtificial intelligenceDietary assessmentValidity

Identifiers

PMID40207441
PMCPMC12229984

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.