Cited by 71Advanced Neural Network ApplicationsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorNutritional Studies and Diet

Advancements in Using AI for Dietary Assessment Based on Food Images: Scoping Review

Open access
Chotwanvirat, Phawinpon, Prachansuwan, Aree, Sridonpai, Pimnapanut, Kriengsinyos, Wantanee·2024·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: To accurately capture an individual’s food intake, dietitians are often required to ask clients about their food frequencies and portions, and they have to rely on the client’s memory, which can be burdensome. While taking food photos alongside food records can alleviate user burden and reduce errors in self-reporting, this method still requires trained staff to translate food photos into dietary intake data. Image-assisted dietary assessment (IADA) is an innovative approach that uses computer algorithms to mimic human performance in estimating dietary information from food images. This field has seen continuous improvement through advancements in computer science, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI). However, the technical nature of this field can make it challenging for those without a technical background to understand it completely. Objective: This review aims to fill the gap by providing a current overview of AI’s integration into dietary assessment using food images. The content is organized chronologically and presented in an accessible manner for those unfamiliar with AI terminology. In addition, we discuss the systems’ strengths and weaknesses and propose enhancements to improve IADA’s accuracy and adoption in the nutrition community. Methods: This scoping review used PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies. The review focused on computational techniques used in IADA, specifically AI models, devices, and sensors, or digital methods for food recognition and food volume estimation published between 2008 and 2021. Results: A total of 522 articles were initially identified. On the basis of a rigorous selection process, 84 (16.1%) articles were ultimately included in this review. The selected articles reveal that early systems, developed before 2015, relied on handcrafted machine learning algorithms to manage traditional sequential processes, such as segmentation, food identification, portion estimation, and nutrient calculations. Since 2015, these handcrafted algorithms have been largely replaced by deep learning algorithms for handling the same tasks. More recently, the traditional sequential process has been superseded by advanced algorithms, including multitask convolutional neural networks and generative adversarial networks. Most of the systems were validated for macronutrient and energy estimation, while only a few were capable of estimating micronutrients, such as sodium. Notably, significant advancements have been made in the field of IADA, with efforts focused on replicating humanlike performance. Conclusions: This review highlights the progress made by IADA, particularly in the areas of food identification and portion estimation. Advancements in AI techniques have shown great potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of this field. However, it is crucial to involve dietitians and nutritionists in the development of these systems to ensure they meet the requirements and trust of professionals in the field.

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 · 10.2196/51432

Cites

7 of 7 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

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

Authors
Chotwanvirat, P., Prachansuwan, A., Sridonpai, P., & Kriengsinyos, W.
Affiliations
  • Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (TH)
  • Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Kriengsinyos, Wantanee
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2024-11-15
Volume
26
Pages
e51432
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4404401530
Cited by
71
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 28
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Mahidol University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
food images, food recognition, food volume estimation, deep learning, convolutional neural networks, generative adversarial networks, macronutrient estimation, energy estimates, dietary assessment
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Food, Humans, Nutrition Assessment

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