Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Diet interventions often have poor adherence due to burdensome food logging. Approaches using photographs assessed by artificial intelligence (AI) may make food logging easier, if they are adequately accurate.
Method: We used OpenAI's GPT-4o model with one-shot prompts and no fine-tuning to assess energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate, fiber, and salt through photographs of 22 meals, comparing assessments to weighed food records for each meal and to assessments of dieticians.
Results: The model had poor performance overall. For fiber, though, the model achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.71 (0.67-0.74 95% CI), well above the dietician performance of 0.57.
Conclusions: The simplest use of current AI via one-shot prompting and no fine-tuning accurately assesses fiber content in meals but is inaccurate for other nutritional parameters.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11724398 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/19322968241309889 | DOI Listing |