The Use of Food Images and Crowdsourcing to Capture Real-time Eating Behaviors: Acceptability and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As poor diet quality is a significant risk factor for multiple noncommunicable diseases prevalent in the United States, it is important that methods be developed to accurately capture eating behavior data. There is growing interest in the use of ecological momentary assessments to collect data on health behaviors and their predictors on a micro timescale (at different points within or across days); however, documenting eating behaviors remains a challenge. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study (N=48) aims to examine the feasibility-usability and acceptability-of using smartphone-captured and crowdsource-labeled images to document eating behaviors in real time. METHODS: Participants completed the Block Fat/Sugar/Fruit/Vegetable Screener to provide a measure of their typical eating behavior, then took pictures of their meals and snacks and answered brief survey questions for 7 consecutive days using a commercially available smartphone app. Participant acceptability was determined through a questionnaire regarding their experiences administered at the end of the study. The images of meals and snacks were uploaded to Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing distributed human intelligence platform, where 2 Workers assigned a count of food categories to the images (fruits, vegetables, salty snacks, and sweet snacks). The agreement among MTurk Workers was assessed, and weekly food counts were calculated and compared with the Screener responses. RESULTS: Participants reported little difficulty in uploading photographs and remembered to take photographs most of the time. Crowdsource-labeled images (n=1014) showed moderate agreement between the MTurk Worker responses for vegetables (688/1014, 67.85%) and high agreement for all other food categories (871/1014, 85.89% for fruits; 847/1014, 83.53% for salty snacks, and 833/1014, 81.15% for sweet snacks). There were no significant differences in weekly food consumption between the food images and the Block Screener, suggesting that this approach may measure typical eating behaviors as accurately as traditional methods, with lesser burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach offers a potentially time-efficient and cost-effective strategy for capturing eating events in real time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".