Evaluating food portion estimation accuracy with multi-angle photographs.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Nutrition Research and Practice Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-28 DOI:10.4162/nrp.2025.19.4.605
In-Young Choi, Mi-Hyun Kim
{"title":"Evaluating food portion estimation accuracy with multi-angle photographs.","authors":"In-Young Choi, Mi-Hyun Kim","doi":"10.4162/nrp.2025.19.4.605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the validity of estimating food quantities using photographs taken at different angles to increase the accuracy of dietary intake surveys.</p><p><strong>Subjects/methods: </strong>Eighty-two adults (41 males and 41 females), ranging in age from their 20s to 50s, participated in the study. The participants observed 6 types of food-cooked rice, soup, grilled fish, vegetables, kimchi, and beverages-arranged to simulate an actual meal. After a 3-min observation, they were asked to move to another room and select a photograph that they believed matched the observed food amount. Photographs of each food were taken from 3 different angles (0°, 45°, 70° for solid foods; 45°, 60°, 70° for beverages). The accuracy, underestimation, and overestimation rates were calculated for each type of food and angle.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cooked rice had the highest accuracy at 45° (74.4%) (<i>P</i> < 0.001), which improved to 85.4% when multiple angles were combined. Soup showed lower accuracy across all angles and had higher overestimation rates. The angles for the grilled fish did not show significant differences, but the accuracy slightly improved when the angles were combined. For vegetables, the accuracy increased to 53.7% when the angles were combined (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Kimchi showed the highest accuracy at 45° (52.4%), and beverages showed the highest accuracy at 70° (73.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The accuracy of food quantity estimation varies depending on the type of food and the shooting angle. For solid foods, 45° provided the best accuracy, whereas 70° was most accurate for beverages. Combining different angles improved the estimation accuracy for most food types.</p>","PeriodicalId":19232,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition Research and Practice","volume":"19 4","pages":"605-620"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12340097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2025.19.4.605","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the validity of estimating food quantities using photographs taken at different angles to increase the accuracy of dietary intake surveys.

Subjects/methods: Eighty-two adults (41 males and 41 females), ranging in age from their 20s to 50s, participated in the study. The participants observed 6 types of food-cooked rice, soup, grilled fish, vegetables, kimchi, and beverages-arranged to simulate an actual meal. After a 3-min observation, they were asked to move to another room and select a photograph that they believed matched the observed food amount. Photographs of each food were taken from 3 different angles (0°, 45°, 70° for solid foods; 45°, 60°, 70° for beverages). The accuracy, underestimation, and overestimation rates were calculated for each type of food and angle.

Results: Cooked rice had the highest accuracy at 45° (74.4%) (P < 0.001), which improved to 85.4% when multiple angles were combined. Soup showed lower accuracy across all angles and had higher overestimation rates. The angles for the grilled fish did not show significant differences, but the accuracy slightly improved when the angles were combined. For vegetables, the accuracy increased to 53.7% when the angles were combined (P < 0.05). Kimchi showed the highest accuracy at 45° (52.4%), and beverages showed the highest accuracy at 70° (73.2%).

Conclusion: The accuracy of food quantity estimation varies depending on the type of food and the shooting angle. For solid foods, 45° provided the best accuracy, whereas 70° was most accurate for beverages. Combining different angles improved the estimation accuracy for most food types.

用多角度照片评价食物分量估计的准确性。
背景/目的:本研究旨在评估利用不同角度拍摄的照片估算食物摄入量的有效性,以提高膳食摄入量调查的准确性。研究对象/方法:82名成年人(男41名,女41名),年龄从20岁到50岁不等。参与者观察了6种食物——煮熟的米饭、汤、烤鱼、蔬菜、泡菜和饮料——以模拟一顿真正的饭。观察3分钟后,他们被要求转移到另一个房间,选择一张他们认为与观察到的食物量相符的照片。每种食物从3个不同角度拍摄照片(固体食物为0°、45°、70°;45°,60°,70°(饮料)。计算了每种食物和角度的准确度、低估率和高估率。结果:煮熟的米饭在45°时准确率最高(74.4%)(P < 0.001),多个角度组合时准确率提高到85.4%。汤在所有角度的准确性都较低,高估率较高。烤鱼的角度没有显着差异,但当角度组合时,准确性略有提高。对于蔬菜,当角度组合时,准确率提高到53.7% (P < 0.05)。泡菜的正确率最高为45°(52.4%),饮料的正确率最高为70°(73.2%)。结论:食品量估算的准确性因食品种类和拍摄角度的不同而不同。对于固体食品,45°提供最佳精度,而对于饮料,70°提供最准确的精度。结合不同的角度提高了对大多数食物类型的估计精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nutrition Research and Practice
Nutrition Research and Practice NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition Research and Practice (NRP) is an official journal, jointly published by the Korean Nutrition Society and the Korean Society of Community Nutrition since 2007. The journal had been published quarterly at the initial stage and has been published bimonthly since 2010. NRP aims to stimulate research and practice across diverse areas of human nutrition. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts on nutrition biochemistry and metabolism, community nutrition, nutrition and disease management, nutritional epidemiology, nutrition education, foodservice management in the following categories: Original Research Articles, Notes, Communications, and Reviews. Reviews will be received by the invitation of the editors only. Statements made and opinions expressed in the manuscripts published in this Journal represent the views of authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Societies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信