Assessing Mealtime Macronutrient Content: Patient Perceptions Versus Expert Analyses via a Novel Phone App
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: People with type 1 diabetes estimate meal carbohydrate content to accurately dose insulin, yet, protein and fat content of meals also influences postprandial glycemia. We examined accuracy of macronutrient content estimation via a novel phone app. Participant estimates were compared with expert nutrition analyses performed via the Remote Food Photography Method© (RFPM©). Methods: Data were collected through a novel phone app. Participants were asked to take photos of meals/snacks on the day of and day after scheduled exercise, enter carbohydrate estimates, and categorize meals as low, typical, or high protein and fat. Glycemia was measured via continuous glucose monitoring. Results: Participants ( n = 48) were 15–68 years (34 ± 14 years); 40% were female. The phone app plus RFPM© analysis captured 88% ± 29% of participants' estimated total energy expenditure. The majority (70%) of both low-protein and low-fat meals were accurately classified. Only 22% of high-protein meals and 17% of high-fat meals were accurately classified. Forty-nine percent of meals with <30 g of carbohydrates were overestimated by an average of 25.7 ± 17.2 g. The majority (64%) of large carbohydrate meals (≥60 g) were underestimated by an average of 53.6 ± 33.8 g. Glycemic response to large carbohydrate meals was similar between participants who underestimated or overestimated carbohydrate content, suggesting that factors beyond carbohydrate counting may impact postprandial glycemic response. Conclusions: Accurate estimation of total macronutrients in meals could be leveraged to improve insulin decision support tools and closed loop insulin delivery systems; development of tools to improve macronutrient estimation skills should be considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".