A Deep Learning–Based Rotten Food Recognition App for Older Adults: Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at greater risk of eating rotten fruits and of getting food poisoning because cognitive function declines as they age, making it difficult to distinguish rotten fruits. To address this problem, researchers have developed and evaluated various tools to detect rotten food items in various ways. Nevertheless, little is known about how to create an app to detect rotten food items to support older adults at a risk of health problems from eating rotten food items. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) create a smartphone app that enables older adults to take a picture of food items with a camera and classifies the fruit as rotten or not rotten for older adults and (2) evaluate the usability of the app and the perceptions of older adults about the app. METHODS: We developed a smartphone app that supports older adults in determining whether the 3 fruits selected for this study (apple, banana, and orange) were fresh enough to eat. We used several residual deep networks to check whether the fruit photos collected were of fresh fruit. We recruited healthy older adults aged over 65 years (n=15, 57.7%, males and n=11, 42.3%, females) as participants. We evaluated the usability of the app and the participants' perceptions about the app through surveys and interviews. We analyzed the survey responses, including an after-scenario questionnaire, as evaluation indicators of the usability of the app and collected qualitative data from the interviewees for in-depth analysis of the survey responses. RESULTS: The participants were satisfied with using an app to determine whether a fruit is fresh by taking a picture of the fruit but are reluctant to use the paid version of the app. The survey results revealed that the participants tended to use the app efficiently to take pictures of fruits and determine their freshness. The qualitative data analysis on app usability and participants' perceptions about the app revealed that they found the app simple and easy to use, they had no difficulty taking pictures, and they found the app interface visually satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the possibility of developing an app that supports older adults in identifying rotten food items effectively and efficiently. Future work to make the app distinguish the freshness of various food items other than the 3 fruits selected still remains.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".