{"title":"评估用于估算自由生活条件下膳食摄入量的 PortionSize 智能手机应用程序的有效性：试点研究。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jneb.2024.05.226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Evaluate the validity of the PortionSize application.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this pilot study, 14 adults used PortionSize to record their free-living food intake over 3 consecutive days. Digital photography was the criterion measure, and the main outcomes were estimated intake of food (grams), energy (kilocalories), and food groups. Equivalence tests with ±25% equivalence bounds and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Estimated gram intake from PortionSize was equivalent (<em>P</em> < 0.001) to digital photography estimates. PortionSize and digital photography estimated energy intake, however, were not equivalent (<em>P</em> = 0.08), with larger estimates from PortionSize. In addition, PortionSize and digital photography were equivalent for vegetable intake (<em>P</em> = 0.01), but PortionSize had larger estimates of fruits, grains, dairy, and protein intake (<em>P</em> >0.07; error range 11% to 23%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>Compared with digital photography, PortionSize accurately estimated food intake and had reasonable error rates for other nutrients; however, it overestimated energy intake, indicating further application improvements are needed for free-living conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269/pdfft?md5=6f2cba1d8e29e8e5dc686ae193abeaa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1499404624003269-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jneb.2024.05.226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Evaluate the validity of the PortionSize application.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In this pilot study, 14 adults used PortionSize to record their free-living food intake over 3 consecutive days. Digital photography was the criterion measure, and the main outcomes were estimated intake of food (grams), energy (kilocalories), and food groups. Equivalence tests with ±25% equivalence bounds and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Estimated gram intake from PortionSize was equivalent (<em>P</em> < 0.001) to digital photography estimates. PortionSize and digital photography estimated energy intake, however, were not equivalent (<em>P</em> = 0.08), with larger estimates from PortionSize. In addition, PortionSize and digital photography were equivalent for vegetable intake (<em>P</em> = 0.01), but PortionSize had larger estimates of fruits, grains, dairy, and protein intake (<em>P</em> >0.07; error range 11% to 23%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><p>Compared with digital photography, PortionSize accurately estimated food intake and had reasonable error rates for other nutrients; however, it overestimated energy intake, indicating further application improvements are needed for free-living conditions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269/pdfft?md5=6f2cba1d8e29e8e5dc686ae193abeaa0&pid=1-s2.0-S1499404624003269-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499404624003269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study
Objective
Evaluate the validity of the PortionSize application.
Methods
In this pilot study, 14 adults used PortionSize to record their free-living food intake over 3 consecutive days. Digital photography was the criterion measure, and the main outcomes were estimated intake of food (grams), energy (kilocalories), and food groups. Equivalence tests with ±25% equivalence bounds and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.
Results
Estimated gram intake from PortionSize was equivalent (P < 0.001) to digital photography estimates. PortionSize and digital photography estimated energy intake, however, were not equivalent (P = 0.08), with larger estimates from PortionSize. In addition, PortionSize and digital photography were equivalent for vegetable intake (P = 0.01), but PortionSize had larger estimates of fruits, grains, dairy, and protein intake (P >0.07; error range 11% to 23%).
Conclusions and Implications
Compared with digital photography, PortionSize accurately estimated food intake and had reasonable error rates for other nutrients; however, it overestimated energy intake, indicating further application improvements are needed for free-living conditions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
