Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41423345›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of nutrition2026

Artificial intelligence applications for assessing ultra-processed food consumption: a scoping review.

Jessica L Campbell, Grant Schofield, Hannah R Tiedt, Caryn Zinn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Jessica L CampbellHuman Potential Centre, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, https://ror.org/01zvqw119Auckland University of Technology, Auckland1142, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0119-2596
Grant SchofieldHuman Potential Centre, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, https://ror.org/01zvqw119Auckland University of Technology, Auckland1142, New Zealand.
Hannah R TiedtSports Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland1142, New Zealand.
Caryn ZinnHuman Potential Centre, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, https://ror.org/01zvqw119Auckland University of Technology, Auckland1142, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDietFast FoodsFood HandlingFood, ProcessedHumansArtificial intelligenceFood processingMachine learningNOVA classificationScoping reviewUltra-processed foods

Identifiers

PMID41423345
PMCPMC12929014

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.