2D Prediction of the Nutritional Composition of Dishes from Food Images: Deep Learning Algorithm Selection and Data Curation Beyond the Nutrition5k Project

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Deep learning (DL) has shown strong potential in analyzing food images, but few studies have directly predicted mass, energy, and macronutrient content from images. In addition to the importance of high-quality data, differences in country-specific food composition databases (FCDBs) can hinder model generalization. <b>Methods</b>: We assessed the performance of several standard DL models using four ground truth datasets derived from Nutrition5k-the largest image-nutrition dataset with ~5000 complex US cafeteria dishes. In light of developing an Italian dietary assessment tool, these datasets varied by FCDB alignment (Italian vs. US) and data curation (ingredient-mass correction and frame filtering on the test set). We evaluated combinations of four feature extractors [ResNet-50 (R50), ResNet-101 (R101), InceptionV3 (IncV3), and Vision Transformer-B-16 (ViT-B-16)] with two regression networks (2+1 and 2+2), using IncV3_2+2 as the benchmark. Descriptive statistics (percentages of agreement, unweighted Cohen's kappa, and Bland-Altman plots) and standard regression metrics were used to compare predicted and ground truth nutritional composition. Dishes mispredicted by ≥7 algorithms were analyzed separately. <b>Results</b>: R50, R101, and ViT-B-16 consistently outperformed the benchmark across all datasets. Specifically, when replacing it with these top algorithms, reductions in median Mean Absolute Percentage Errors were 6.2% for mass, 6.4% for energy, 12.3% for fat, and 33.1% and 40.2% for protein and carbohydrates. Ingredient-mass correction substantially improved prediction metrics (6-42% when considering the top algorithms), while frame filtering had a more limited effect (<3%). Performance was consistently poor across most models for complex salads, chicken-based or eggs-based dishes, and Western-inspired breakfasts. <b>Conclusions</b>: The R101 and ViT-B-16 architectures will be prioritized in future analyses, where ingredient-mass correction and automated frame filtering methods will be considered.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nutrients
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17132196
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Nutritional Studies and Diet
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.76
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

2D Prediction of the Nutritional Composition of Dishes from Food Images: Deep Learning Algorithm Selection and Data Curation Beyond the Nutrition5k Project

Monica Ferraroni, Valeria Edefonti, Federica Fiori, Alex Falcon et al.
2 citations
Nutrients
Nutritional Studies and Diet
3.76
article

2D Prediction of the Nutritional Composition of Dishes from Food Images: Deep Learning Algorithm Selection and Data Curation Beyond the Nutrition5k Project

Monica Ferraroni, Valeria Edefonti, Federica Fiori, Alex Falcon, Giuseppe Serra, Sergio Coluccia, Michela Marinoni, Maria Parpinel, Rachele Bianco
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Deep learning (DL) has shown strong potential in analyzing food images, but few studies have directly predicted mass, energy, and macronutrient content from images. In addition to the importance of high-quality data, differences in country-specific food composition databases (FCDBs) can hinder model generalization. <b>Methods</b>: We assessed the performance of several standard DL models using four ground truth datasets derived from Nutrition5k-the largest image-nutrition dataset with ~5000 complex US cafeteria dishes. In light of developing an Italian dietary assessment tool, these datasets varied by FCDB alignment (Italian vs. US) and data curation (ingredient-mass correction and frame filtering on the test set). We evaluated combinations of four feature extractors [ResNet-50 (R50), ResNet-101 (R101), InceptionV3 (IncV3), and Vision Transformer-B-16 (ViT-B-16)] with two regression networks (2+1 and 2+2), using IncV3_2+2 as the benchmark. Descriptive statistics (percentages of agreement, unweighted Cohen's kappa, and Bland-Altman plots) and standard regression metrics were used to compare predicted and ground truth nutritional composition. Dishes mispredicted by ≥7 algorithms were analyzed separately. <b>Results</b>: R50, R101, and ViT-B-16 consistently outperformed the benchmark across all datasets. Specifically, when replacing it with these top algorithms, reductions in median Mean Absolute Percentage Errors were 6.2% for mass, 6.4% for energy, 12.3% for fat, and 33.1% and 40.2% for protein and carbohydrates. Ingredient-mass correction substantially improved prediction metrics (6-42% when considering the top algorithms), while frame filtering had a more limited effect (<3%). Performance was consistently poor across most models for complex salads, chicken-based or eggs-based dishes, and Western-inspired breakfasts. <b>Conclusions</b>: The R101 and ViT-B-16 architectures will be prioritized in future analyses, where ingredient-mass correction and automated frame filtering methods will be considered.

NutrientsVol. 17(13)
University of Udine (IT), University of Milan (IT), Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (IT)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Nutritional Studies and Diet
3.76
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.