Cited by 58Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorDiabetes Management and Education

Comparison of Known Food Weights with Image-Based Portion-Size Automated Estimation and Adolescents' Self-Reported Portion Size

Open access
Lee, Christina D., Chae, Junghoon, Schap, TusaRebecca E., Kerr, Deborah A., Delp, Edward J., Ebert, David S., Boushey, Carol J.·2012·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Background: Diet is a critical element of diabetes self-management. An emerging area of research is the use of images for dietary records using mobile telephones with embedded cameras. These tools are being designed to reduce user burden and to improve accuracy of portion-size estimation through automation. The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the error of automatically determined portion weights compared to known portion weights of foods and (2) to compare the error between automation and human. Methods: Adolescents ( n = 15) captured images of their eating occasions over a 24 h period. All foods and beverages served were weighed. Adolescents self-reported portion sizes for one meal. Image analysis was used to estimate portion weights. Data analysis compared known weights, automated weights, and self-reported portions. Results: For the 19 foods, the mean ratio of automated weight estimate to known weight ranged from 0.89 to 4.61, and 9 foods were within 0.80 to 1.20. The largest error was for lettuce and the most accurate was strawberry jam. The children were fairly accurate with portion estimates for two foods (sausage links, toast) using one type of estimation aid and two foods (sausage links, scrambled eggs) using another aid. The automated method was fairly accurate for two foods (sausage links, jam); however, the 95% confidence intervals for the automated estimates were consistently narrower than human estimates. Conclusions: The ability of humans to estimate portion sizes of foods remains a problem and a perceived burden. Errors in automated portion-size estimation can be systematically addressed while minimizing the burden on people. Future applications that take over the burden of these processes may translate to better diabetes self-management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/193229681200600231

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, C. D., Chae, J., Schap, T. E., Kerr, D. A., Delp, E. J., Ebert, D. S., & Boushey, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Boushey, Carol J.
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2012-03
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
428-434
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147707785
Cited by
58
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7
FWCI
11.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA130784)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK073711)
  • National Center for Research Resources (TL1RR025759)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
portion size estimation, adolescents, dietary records, smartphone camera, diabetes self-management, estimation accuracy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Automation, Beverages, Energy Intake, Child, Eating, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food, Humans, Indiana, Male, Photography, Size Perception, Weights and Measures, Reproducibility of Results, Nutrition Policy, Cell Phone, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review