Evaluating the Validity of the PortionSize Smartphone Application for Estimating Dietary Intake in Free-Living Conditions: A Pilot Study

Overview

Journal J Nutr Educ Behav

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2024 Jun 18

PMID 38888538

Authors

Hanim E Diktas

Chloe P Lozano

Sanjoy Saha

Stephanie T Broyles

Corby K Martin

John W Apolzan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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.

References

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Lucassen D, Brouwer-Brolsma E, Boshuizen H, Mars M, Bosch J, Feskens E . Validation of the smartphone-based dietary assessment tool "Traqq" for assessing actual dietary intake by repeated 2-h recalls in adults: comparison with 24-h recalls and urinary biomarkers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2023; 117(6):1278-1287. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.04.008. View

Williamson D, Allen H, Martin P, Alfonso A, Gerald B, Hunt A . Digital photography: a new method for estimating food intake in cafeteria settings. Eat Weight Disord. 2004; 9(1):24-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF03325041. View

Brunstrom J . Mind over platter: pre-meal planning and the control of meal size in humans. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014; 38 Suppl 1:S9-12. PMC: 4105578. DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2014.83. View

Burrows T, Martin R, Collins C . A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010; 110(10):1501-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.008. View

Hochsmann C, Fearnbach N, Dorling J, Fazzino T, Myers C, Apolzan J . Preference, Expected Burden, and Willingness to Use Digital and Traditional Methods to Assess Food and Alcohol Intake. Nutrients. 2021; 13(10). PMC: 8539386. DOI: 10.3390/nu13103340. View

Zhao X, Xu X, Li X, He X, Yang Y, Zhu S . Emerging trends of technology-based dietary assessment: a perspective study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020; 75(4):582-587. DOI: 10.1038/s41430-020-00779-0. View

Martin C, Correa J, Han H, Allen H, Rood J, Champagne C . Validity of the Remote Food Photography Method (RFPM) for estimating energy and nutrient intake in near real-time. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011; 20(4):891-9. PMC: 3975169. DOI: 10.1038/oby.2011.344. View

Williamson D, Allen H, Martin P, Alfonso A, Gerald B, Hunt A . Comparison of digital photography to weighed and visual estimation of portion sizes. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003; 103(9):1139-45. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-8223(03)00974-x. View

10.

Lee S, Lee D . What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test?. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018; 71(5):353-360. PMC: 6193594. DOI: 10.4097/kja.d.18.00242. View

11.

Saha S, Lozano C, Broyles S, Apolzan J, Martin C . Selecting foods from FNDDS when calculating food intake: Does the reference matter?. J Food Compost Anal. 2023; 125. PMC: 10634654. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105733. View

12.

Saha S, Lozano C, Broyles S, Martin C, Apolzan J . Assessing the Initial Validity of the PortionSize App to Estimate Dietary Intake Among Adults: Pilot and Feasibility App Validation Study. JMIR Form Res. 2022; 6(6):e38283. PMC: 9244674. DOI: 10.2196/38283. View

13.

Hertzog M . Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Res Nurs Health. 2008; 31(2):180-91. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20247. View

14.

Teixeira V, Voci S, Mendes-Netto R, da Silva D . The relative validity of a food record using the smartphone application MyFitnessPal. Nutr Diet. 2017; 75(2):219-225. DOI: 10.1111/1747-0080.12401. View

15.

Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View

16.

Walker E, Nowacki A . Understanding equivalence and noninferiority testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 26(2):192-6. PMC: 3019319. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1513-8. View

17.

Olafsdottir A, Hornell A, Hedelin M, Waling M, Gunnarsdottir I, Olsson C . Development and Validation of a Photographic Method to Use for Dietary Assessment in School Settings. PLoS One. 2016; 11(10):e0163970. PMC: 5053534. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163970. View

18.

Ambrosini G, Hurworth M, Giglia R, Trapp G, Strauss P . Feasibility of a commercial smartphone application for dietary assessment in epidemiological research and comparison with 24-h dietary recalls. Nutr J. 2018; 17(1):5. PMC: 5761106. DOI: 10.1186/s12937-018-0315-4. View

19.

Lozano C, Canty E, Saha S, Broyles S, Beyl R, Apolzan J . Validity of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Application to Identify Foods and Estimate Energy Intake Among Adults: A Pilot Study. Curr Dev Nutr. 2023; 7(11):102009. PMC: 10656219. DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2023.102009. View

20.

Yu Z, Sealey-Potts C, Rodriguez J . Dietary Self-Monitoring in Weight Management: Current Evidence on Efficacy and Adherence. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015; 115(12):1931-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.04.005. View