ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2026
Artificial intelligence applications for assessing ultra-processed food consumption: a scoping review.
Article in The British journal of nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Ultra-processed foods (UPF), defined using frameworks such as NOVA, are increasingly linked to adverse health outcomes, driving interest in ways to identify and monitor their consumption. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential, yet its application in classifying UPF remains underexamined. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review mapping how AI has been used, focusing on techniques, input data, classification frameworks, accuracy and application. Studies were eligible if peer-reviewed, published in English (2015-2025), and they applied AI approaches to assess or classify UPF using recognised or study-specific frameworks. A systematic search in May 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Medline and CINAHL identified 954 unique records with eight ultimately meeting the inclusion criteria; one additional study was added in October following an updated search after peer review. Records were independently screened and extracted by two reviewers. Extracted data covered AI methods, input types, frameworks, outputs, validation and context. Studies used diverse techniques, including random forest classifiers, large language models and rule-based systems, applied across various contexts. Four studies explored practical settings: two assessed consumption or purchasing behaviours, and two developed substitution tools for healthier options. All relied on NOVA or modified versions to categorise processing. Several studies reported predictive accuracy, with F1 scores from 0·86 to 0·98, while another showed alignment between clusters and NOVA categories. Findings highlight the potential of AI tools to improve dietary monitoring and the need for further development of real-time methods and validation to support public health.
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.