How big data analytics can strengthen large‐scale food fortification and biofortification decision‐making: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big data analytics have shown great potential to improve decision-making in health, including disease surveillance and healthcare delivery. This scoping review explores how big data supports decision-making in large-scale food fortification (LSFF) and biofortification across the food value chain. Following PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed open-access peer-reviewed literature and gray literature from 2012 to 2022. Given the limited literature, we broadened our search to include big data applications in agriculture and nutrition, aiming to draw relevant insights for LSFF and biofortification. Of 1678 records, 28 mentioned LSFF or biofortification, all published between 2018 and 2022. Overall, most records focused on production (60%) and inputs (19.5%). Notably, 16.7% (n = 7) of records mentioning LSFF or biofortification addressed public health monitoring, compared to 2.3% (n = 45) of those without a mention. Use case examples include blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT) for fortified product traceability, machine learning to predict fortification gaps, and artificial intelligence to analyze anemia prevalence, highlighting opportunities to enhance both production and public health monitoring. Despite this potential, big data use in LSFF and biofortification remains limited. Expanding its use in underexplored areas, such as distribution and regulation, could enhance decision-making, efficiency, and sustainability in LSFF and biofortification.
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 | 0.028 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".