A Food Intake Estimation System Using an Artificial Intelligence–Based Model for Estimating Leftover Hospital Liquid Food in Clinical Environments: Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Medical staff often conduct assessments, such as food intake and nutrient sufficiency ratios, to accurately evaluate patients’ food consumption. However, visual estimations to measure food intake are difficult to perform with numerous patients. Hence, the clinical environment requires a simple and accurate method to measure dietary intake. Objective This study aims to develop a food intake estimation system through an artificial intelligence (AI) model to estimate leftover food. The accuracy of the AI’s estimation was compared with that of visual estimation for liquid foods served to hospitalized patients. Methods The estimations were evaluated by a dietitian who looked at the food photo (image visual estimation) and visual measurement evaluation was carried out by a nurse who looked directly at the food (direct visual estimation) based on actual measurements. In total, 300 dishes of liquid food (100 dishes of thin rice gruel, 100 of vegetable soup, 31 of fermented milk, and 18, 12, 13, and 26 of peach, grape, orange, and mixed juices, respectively) were used. The root-mean-square error (RMSE) and coefficient of determination (R2) were used as metrics to determine the accuracy of the evaluation process. Corresponding t tests and Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to verify the accuracy of the measurements by each estimation method with the weighing method. Results The RMSE obtained by the AI estimation approach was 8.12 for energy. This tended to be smaller and larger than that obtained by the image visual estimation approach (8.49) and direct visual estimation approach (4.34), respectively. In addition, the R2 value for the AI estimation tended to be larger and smaller than the image and direct visual estimations, respectively. There was no difference between the AI estimation (mean 71.7, SD 23.9 kcal, P=.82) and actual values with the weighing method. However, the mean nutrient intake from the image visual estimation (mean 75.5, SD 23.2 kcal, P<.001) and direct visual estimation (mean 73.1, SD 26.4 kcal, P=.007) were significantly different from the actual values. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were high for energy (ρ=0.89-0.97), protein (ρ=0.94-0.97), fat (ρ=0.91-0.94), and carbohydrate (ρ=0.89-0.97). Conclusions The measurement from the food intake estimation system by an AI-based model to estimate leftover liquid food intake in patients showed a high correlation with the actual values with the weighing method. Furthermore, it also showed a higher accuracy than the image visual estimation. The errors of the AI estimation method were within the acceptable range of the weighing method, which indicated that the AI-based food intake estimation system could be applied in clinical environments. However, its lower accuracy than that of direct visual estimation was still an issue.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".