MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414919308 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2555632

Exploring Sensing Technologies for Tracking Healthy Eating Behaviors: Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4414919308 on OpenAlexaff
Grace Ataguba, Rita Orji

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)Healthy eatingHealthy agingTracking systemActivity recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensor-based technologies for healthy eating have gained attention in human-computer interaction research. With the prevalence of diet-related health issues such as obesity and diabetes, innovative interventions providing personalized dietary feedback are increasingly needed. Sensor-based technologies offer real-time monitoring of dietary habits. We reviewed 28 articles, published between 2014 and 2024, to uncover the state-of-the-art and research gaps. Sixteen articles (57.1%) reported on effectiveness: seven measured by machine learning model performance and nine through user study evaluation. We identified several eating behaviors that were supported: adequate food intake, meal size and quality, eating posture, swallowing sounds and difficulties, eating styles, and pace. These behaviors were associated with conditions such as diabetes, post-stroke issues, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and binge eating. Limitations included little to no interventions for life-threatening conditions. Our findings present opportunities to develop tailored sensor-based interventions for various diet-related issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human-Computer InteractionSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207