Back

What is On the Menu? Towards Predicting Nutritional Quality of Food Environments

Seo, D.; Horn, A. L.; Abeliuk, A.; Burghardt, K.

2023-12-10 public and global health
10.1101/2023.12.08.23299691 medRxiv
Show abstract

Unhealthy diets are a leading cause of major chronic diseases including obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Food environments-the physical spaces in which people access and consume food-have the potential to profoundly impact diet and related diseases. We take a step towards better understanding the nutritional quality of food environments by developing MINT: Menu Item to NutrienT model. This model utilizes under-studied data sources on recipes and generic food items, along with state-of-the-art word embedding and deep learning methods, to predict the nutrient density of never-before-seen food items using only their name as input. The model achieves an R2 = 0.77, a sub-stantial improvement over comparable models. We illustrate the utility of MINT by applying it to the Los Angeles restaurant food environment, and discover close agreement between predicted and ground truth nutrient density of restaurant menu items. This model represents a significant step towards a policy toolkit needed to precisely identify and target food environments characterized by poor nutritional quality.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 5%
9.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Patterns
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
◐ 87 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
npj Digital Medicine
○ 118 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
7
IEEE Access
● 35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
8
PLOS Digital Health
● 106 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 19%
2.8%
11
Expert Systems with Applications
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
12
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
◐ 45 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
13
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
14
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Advanced Science
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
16
Biology Methods and Protocols
◐ 61 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
17
Scientific Data
○ 209 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
19
Journal of Neural Engineering
○ 221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.1%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
○ 47 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
22
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
● 37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
23
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
25
Epidemics
○ 116 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
PNAS Nexus
◐ 159 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
28
Biomolecules
○ 100 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
29
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
30
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
● 38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.