Back

Evaluating a Multitask AI Model versus Humans for Portion Size Estimation

Nurmanova, B.; Omarova, Z.; Sanatbyek, A.; Varol, H. A.; Chan, M.-Y.

2026-04-18 nutrition
10.64898/2026.04.16.26351036 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Accurate dietary assessment is essential for precision nutrition and effective nutrition surveillance. However, portion size estimation remains a persistent challenge, particularly in culturally diverse regions such as Central Asia. Traditional self-reporting tools often yield inconsistent results due to communal eating practices and unfamiliarity with standard measures. Objective: To address these limitations, this study aimed to compare three methods: unassisted human judgment, visual food atlas assistance, and an artificial intelligence (AI) model, using Central Asian food items. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 128 participants from Astana, Kazakhstan, visually estimated portion sizes of 51 foods and 8 beverages from standardized photographs. Participants were randomized into two groups: one using unassisted visual estimation and the other aided by a regionally tailored digital food atlas. Additionally, an AI model trained on Central Asian food images was evaluated. Actual food weights served as the reference standard. Accuracy was assessed using Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) across food types and portion sizes. Results: The atlas-assisted group demonstrated the highest accuracy, with the lowest MAE (80.81g) and MAPE (44.76%) across all portions. The AI model showed promising results for average portions (MAE: 79.07g, MAPE: 67.91%) but underperformed on small portions, particularly for meat-based items. Unassisted estimates were the least accurate (MAE: 133.86g, MAPE: 79.40%). Across food categories, visual aids consistently improved accuracy, while AI demonstrated variability by texture and portion size. Conclusions: Culturally adapted visual atlases significantly enhance portion size estimation accuracy in non-Western, communal-eating contexts. While AI models hold promise for dietary assessments, particularly with standard portions and beverages, further refinement is needed for complex food items and small portion types. These findings support the integration of visual and AI-based tools into region-specific dietary monitoring strategies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
Current Developments in Nutrition
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
3
The Journal of Nutrition
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.9%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Nutrition
23 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 18%
6.4%
8
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
10
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
11
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
14
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
15
Food Chemistry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
18
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
Appetite
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Food Research International
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
25
Food & Function
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%