The Human Factor in Automated Image-Based Nutrition Apps: Analysis of Common Mistakes Using the goFOOD Lite App.
apps
dietary assessment
human mistakes
mHealth
mobile phone
smartphone
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 01 2021
13 01 2021
Historique:
received:
21
09
2020
accepted:
30
11
2020
revised:
02
11
2020
entrez:
13
1
2021
pubmed:
14
1
2021
medline:
28
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Technological advancements have enabled nutrient estimation by smartphone apps such as goFOOD. This is an artificial intelligence-based smartphone system, which uses food images or video captured by the user as input and then translates these into estimates of nutrient content. The quality of the data is highly dependent on the images the user records. This can lead to a major loss of data and impaired quality. Instead of removing these data from the study, in-depth analysis is needed to explore common mistakes and to use them for further improvement of automated apps for nutrition assessment. The aim of this study is to analyze common mistakes made by participants using the goFOOD Lite app, a version of goFOOD, which was designed for food-logging, but without providing results to the users, to improve both the instructions provided and the automated functionalities of the app. The 48 study participants were given face-to-face instructions for goFOOD Lite and were asked to record 2 pictures (1 recording) before and 2 pictures (1 recording) after the daily consumption of each food or beverage, using a reference card as a fiducial marker. All pictures that were discarded for processing due to mistakes were analyzed to record the main mistakes made by users. Of the 468 recordings of nonpackaged food items captured by the app, 60 (12.8%) had to be discarded due to errors in the capturing procedure. The principal problems were as follows: wrong fiducial marker or improper marker use (19 recordings), plate issues such as a noncompatible or nonvisible plate (8 recordings), a combination of various issues (17 recordings), and other reasons such as obstacles (hand) in front of the camera or matching recording pairs (16 recordings). No other study has focused on the principal problems in the use of automatic apps for assessing nutritional intake. This study shows that it is important to provide study participants with detailed instructions if high-quality data are to be obtained. Future developments could focus on making it easier to recognize food on various plates from its color or shape and on exploring alternatives to using fiducial markers. It is also essential for future studies to understand the training needed by the participants as well as to enhance the app's user-friendliness and to develop automatic image checks based on participant feedback.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Technological advancements have enabled nutrient estimation by smartphone apps such as goFOOD. This is an artificial intelligence-based smartphone system, which uses food images or video captured by the user as input and then translates these into estimates of nutrient content. The quality of the data is highly dependent on the images the user records. This can lead to a major loss of data and impaired quality. Instead of removing these data from the study, in-depth analysis is needed to explore common mistakes and to use them for further improvement of automated apps for nutrition assessment.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to analyze common mistakes made by participants using the goFOOD Lite app, a version of goFOOD, which was designed for food-logging, but without providing results to the users, to improve both the instructions provided and the automated functionalities of the app.
METHODS
The 48 study participants were given face-to-face instructions for goFOOD Lite and were asked to record 2 pictures (1 recording) before and 2 pictures (1 recording) after the daily consumption of each food or beverage, using a reference card as a fiducial marker. All pictures that were discarded for processing due to mistakes were analyzed to record the main mistakes made by users.
RESULTS
Of the 468 recordings of nonpackaged food items captured by the app, 60 (12.8%) had to be discarded due to errors in the capturing procedure. The principal problems were as follows: wrong fiducial marker or improper marker use (19 recordings), plate issues such as a noncompatible or nonvisible plate (8 recordings), a combination of various issues (17 recordings), and other reasons such as obstacles (hand) in front of the camera or matching recording pairs (16 recordings).
CONCLUSIONS
No other study has focused on the principal problems in the use of automatic apps for assessing nutritional intake. This study shows that it is important to provide study participants with detailed instructions if high-quality data are to be obtained. Future developments could focus on making it easier to recognize food on various plates from its color or shape and on exploring alternatives to using fiducial markers. It is also essential for future studies to understand the training needed by the participants as well as to enhance the app's user-friendliness and to develop automatic image checks based on participant feedback.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33439139
pii: v9i1e24467
doi: 10.2196/24467
pmc: PMC7840289
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e24467Informations de copyright
©Maria F Vasiloglou, Klazine van der Horst, Thomai Stathopoulou, Michael P Jaeggi, Giulia S Tedde, Ya Lu, Stavroula Mougiakakou. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 13.01.2021.
Références
Nutrition. 2005 Jun;21(6):672-7
pubmed: 15925290
Proc Nutr Soc. 2017 Aug;76(3):213-219
pubmed: 28162110
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Nov 02;5(4):e208
pubmed: 27806922
J Clin Med. 2019 Jul 20;8(7):
pubmed: 31330781
J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Jan;110(1):74-9
pubmed: 20102830
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Jul 31;20(15):
pubmed: 32752007
Nutrients. 2018 Jun 07;10(6):
pubmed: 29880772
Nutr J. 2018 Jan 09;17(1):5
pubmed: 29316930
Br J Nutr. 2009 Jul;101 Suppl 2:S73-85
pubmed: 19594967
Nutrition. 2014 Nov-Dec;30(11-12):1257-66
pubmed: 24976425
Nutrients. 2020 Jul 24;12(8):
pubmed: 32722339
J Med Internet Res. 2016 May 11;18(5):e101
pubmed: 27170498
Diabetes Care. 2017 Feb;40(2):e6-e7
pubmed: 27899490
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 Apr;20(4):891-9
pubmed: 22134199
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 May;9(3):507-15
pubmed: 25883163
Nutrients. 2018 Aug 10;10(8):
pubmed: 30103401
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Mar 13;3(1):e30
pubmed: 25775506
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Apr 13;14(2):e58
pubmed: 22504018
Nutrients. 2017 Jan 18;9(1):
pubmed: 28106767