Predicting energy intake in adults who are dieting and exercising.

BACKGROUND: When a lifestyle intervention combines caloric restriction and increased physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), there are two components of energy balance, energy intake (EI) and physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE), that are routinely misreported and expensive to measure. Energy balance models have successfully predicted EI if PAEE is known. Estimating EI from an energy balance model when PAEE is not known remains an open question. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the performance of an energy balance differential equation model to predict EI in an intervention that includes both calorie restriction and increases in PAEE. DESIGN: The Antonetti energy balance model that predicts body weight trajectories during weight loss was solved and inverted to estimate EI during weight loss. Using data from a calorie restriction study that included interventions with and without prescribed PAEE, we tested the validity of the Antonetti weight predictions against measured weight and the Antonetti EI model against measured EI using the intake-balance method at 168 days. We then evaluated the predicted EI from the model against measured EI in a study that prescribed both calorie restriction and increased PAEE. RESULTS: Compared with measured body weight at 168 days, the mean (±SD) model error was 1.30 ± 3.58 kg. Compared with measured EI at 168 days, the mean EI (±SD) model error in the intervention that prescribed calorie restriction and did not prescribe increased PAEE, was -84.9 ± 227.4 kcal/d. In the intervention that prescribed calorie restriction combined with increased PAEE, the mean (±SD) EI model error was -155.70 ± 205.70 kcal/d. CONCLUSION: The validity of the newly developed EI model was supported by experimental observations and can be used to determine EI during weight loss.

Machine learning modeling practices to support the principles of AI and ethics in nutrition research.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition research is relying more on artificial intelligence and machine learning models to understand, diagnose, predict, and explain data. While artificial intelligence and machine learning models provide powerful modeling tools, failure to use careful and well-thought-out modeling processes can lead to misleading conclusions and concerns surrounding ethics and bias. METHODS: Based on our experience as reviewers and journal editors in nutrition and obesity, we identified the most frequently omitted best practices from statistical modeling and how these same practices extend to machine learning models. We next addressed areas required for implementation of machine learning that are not included in commercial software packages. RESULTS: Here, we provide a tutorial on best artificial intelligence and machine learning modeling practices that can reduce potential ethical problems with a checklist and guiding principles to aid nutrition researchers in developing, evaluating, and implementing artificial intelligence and machine learning models in nutrition research. CONCLUSION: The quality of AI/ML modeling in nutrition research requires iterative and tailored processes to mitigate against potential ethical problems or to predict conclusions that are free of bias.