杂志文章%@ 2291-5222 %I JMIR出版物%V 8% N 卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析9% P e16953 %T基于智能手机图像的膳食评估应用程序的有效性和可用性与评估加拿大成年人膳食摄入量的3天食物日记相比:随机对照试验%A Ji,Yuwei %A Plourde,Hugues %A Bouzo,Valerie %A Kilgour,Robert D %A Cohen,Tamara R %+不列颠哥伦比亚大学土地与食品系统学院，食品、营养与健康，东Mall 218-2205, BC省温哥华，V6T 1Z4，加拿大，1 604 827 0362，tamara.cohen@ubc.ca %K移动食品记录%K有效性%K基于图像的膳食评估%K健康成人%K 3天饮食日记%K饮食%K应用%K营养%K mHealth %K加拿大%D 2020 %7 9.9.2020 %9原始论文%J JMIR mHealth Uhealth %G英文%X背景:在包括营养摄入分析的研究中，需要准确的膳食评估。基于图像的饮食评估应用程序在评估饮食方面越来越受欢迎，与传统的纸笔方法相比，它可能减轻研究人员和参与者的负担。然而，很少有研究报告这些应用程序用于研究的有效性。Keenoa是一款基于智能手机图像的膳食评估应用程序，可以使用人工智能识别和识别食物，并允许实时编辑食物日志。目的:本研究旨在评估一个基于图像的膳食评估应用程序- Keenoa -相对于3天的食物日记(3DFD)的有效性，并在一个健康的加拿大成年人样本中测试其可用性。方法:我们招募了102名参与者完成两个为期3天的食物记录。在2周的时间里，在2个非连续的工作日和1个周末，参与者按照随机顺序完成了传统的笔到纸的3DFD和Keenoa应用程序。在研究结束时，参与者完成了系统可用性量表。3DFD和Keenoa数据的营养分析在(Keenoa-参与者)之前和被营养师(Keenoa-营养师)审查之后，采用方差分析进行分析。 Multiple tests, including the Pearson coefficient, cross-classification, kappa score, % difference, paired t test, and Bland-Altman test, were performed to analyze the validity of Keenoa (Keenoa-dietitian). Results: The study was completed by 72 subjects. Most variables were significantly different between Keenoa-participant and Keenoa-dietitian (P<.05) except for energy, protein, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamin B1, vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin D, and potassium. Significant differences in total energy, protein, carbohydrates, % fat, saturated fatty acids, iron, and potassium were found between the 3DFD and Keenoa-dietitian data (P<.05). The Pearson correlation coefficients between the Keenoa-dietitian and 3DFD ranged from .04 to .51. Differences between the mean intakes assessed by the 3DFD and Keenoa-dietitian were within 10% except for vitamin D (misclassification rate=33.8%). The majority of nutrients were within an acceptable range of agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis; no agreements were seen for total energy, protein, carbohydrates, fat (%), saturated fatty acids, iron, potassium, and sodium (P<.05). According to the System Usability Scale, 34.2% of the participants preferred using Keenoa, while 9.6% preferred the 3DFD. Conclusions: The Keenoa app provides acceptable relative validity for some nutrients compared to the 3DFD. However, the average intake of some nutrients, including energy, protein, carbohydrates, % fat, saturated fatty acids, and iron, differed from the average obtained using the 3DFD. These findings highlight the importance of verifying data entries of participants before proceeding with nutrient analysis. Overall, Keenoa showed better validity at the group level than the individual level, suggesting it can be used when focusing on the dietary intake of the general population. Further research is recommended with larger sample sizes and objective dietary assessment approaches. %M 32902389 %R 10.2196/16953 %U https://mhealth.www.mybigtv.com/2020/9/e16953 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/16953 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32902389