ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Reducing bias and enhancing equity in AI-enabled precision nutrition: addressing measurement error across wearables, multiomics, and dietary data.
Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) can offer individualized dietary guidance based on multimodal data collected from various sources, including wearable sensors, high-dimensional multiomics and biomarker analyses, behavioral tracking, and self-reported dietary intake, enabling the emergence of precision nutrition. However, the predictive power and fairness of these models rely on the quality of the data inputs, and measurement errors in any of these underlying data streams can introduce systematic bias, degrade model performance, and disproportionately affect underserved populations. In this review, we examine the central role played by measurement error in AI-driven nutrition tools and evaluate statistical and machine learning approaches for mitigating the impacts of measurement error. We provide structured comparisons exploring both classical methods (e.g., regression calibration, Bayesian models) and emerging AI strategies (e.g., denoising autoencoders, multitask learning, uncertainty-aware deep learning) for correcting biased inputs. We also explore how uncorrected measurement error can perpetuate demographic biases, compromise efforts toward personalized medicine, and exacerbate equity gaps when models are deployed in real-world settings. Our review draws upon evidence across nutrition science, digital health, and algorithmic fairness. We propose a framework and offer actionable strategies for overcoming measurement error that can be implemented by researchers, developers, and regulators working at the intersection of data science and dietary health and seeking to build calibration-aware, inclusive precision nutrition systems.
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.