DeepNOVA: A Deep Learning NOVA Classifier for Food Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the healthiness of food items in images has gained attention in both the computer vision and the nutrition fields. However, such task is generally a difficult one as food images are captured in various settings and thus are usually non-homogeneous. Moreover, assessing how healthy a food item is requires nutritional expertise and knowledge of the constituents of the food item and how it is processed. In this manuscript, we propose an end-to-end deep learning approach that can detect and localize various food items in a given food image using a customized object detection model. Our approach then assesses how healthy each detected food item is by classifying it into one or more of the four NOVA groups (Unprocessed Food, Processed Culinary Ingredients, Processed Food, and Ultra-processed Food). To train our food item detection model, we used two public datasets and a custom one we created ourselves and which contains images of food taken using wearable cameras. To train the NOVA food classifier, we use the custom dataset we created ourselves and that was manually labeled by expert nutritionists. Our food item detection model achieved a mAP of 0.90 and the NOVA food classifier achieved an average F1-score of 0.86 on test data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".