In preparation for personalized nutrition, an accurate assessment of dietary intakes on key essential nutrients using smartphones can help promote health and reduce health risks across vulnerable populations. We, therefore, validated the accuracy of a mobile application (app) against Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) using artificial intelligence (AI) machine-learning-based analytics, assessing key macro- and micro-nutrients across various modern diets. We first used Bland and Altman analysis to identify and visualize the differences between the two measures. We then applied AI-based analytics to enhance prediction accuracy, including generalized regression to identify factors that contributed to the differences between the two measures. The mobile app underestimated most macro- and micro-nutrients compared to FFQ (ranges: −5% for total calories, −19% for cobalamin, −33% for vitamin E). The average correlations between the two measures were 0.87 for macro-nutrients and 0.84 for micro-nutrients. Factors that contributed to the differences between the two measures using total calories as an example, included caloric range (1000–2000 versus others), carbohydrate, and protein; for cobalamin, included caloric range, protein, and Chinese diet. Future studies are needed to validate actual intakes and reporting of various diets, and to examine the accuracy of mobile App. Thus, a mobile app can be used to support personalized nutrition in the mHealth era, considering adjustments with sources that could contribute to the inaccurate estimates of nutrients.

Internet-based applications (apps) are rapidly developing in the e-Health era to assess the dietary intake of essential macro-and micro-nutrients for precision nutrition. We, therefore, validated the accuracy of an internet-based app against the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR), assessing these essential nutrients among various social-ethnic diet types. The agreement between the two measures using intraclass correlation coefficients was good (0.85) for total calories, but moderate for caloric ranges outside of 2000 (0.57); and good (>0.75) for most macro- (average: 0.85) and micro-nutrients (average: 0.83) except cobalamin (0.73) and calcium (0.51). The app underestimated nutrients that are associated with protein and fat (protein: −5.82%, fat: −12.78%, vitamin B12: −13.59%, methionine: −8.76%, zinc: −12.49%), while overestimated nutrients that are associated with carbohydrate (fiber: 6.7%, B9: 9.06%). Using artificial intelligence analytics, we confirmed the factors that could contribute to the differences between the two measures for various essential nutrients, and they included caloric ranges; the differences between the two measures for carbohydrates, protein, and fat; and diet types. For total calories, as an example, the source factors that contributed to the differences between the two measures included caloric range (<1000 versus others), fat, and protein; for cobalamin: protein, American, and Japanese diets; and for folate: caloric range (<1000 versus others), carbohydrate, and Italian diet. In the e-Health era, the internet-based app has the capacity to enhance precision nutrition. By identifying and integrating the effects of potential contributing factors in the algorithm of output readings, the accuracy of new app measures could be improved.

Predictors of healthy eating parameters, including the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), Glycemic Index (GI), and Glycemic Load (GL), were examined using various modern diets (n = 131) in preparation for personalized nutrition in the e-health era. Using Nutrition Data Systems for Research computerized software and artificial intelligence machine-learning-based predictive validation analyses, we included domains of HEI, caloric source, and various diets as the potentially modifiable factors. HEI predictors included whole fruits and whole grains, and empty calories. Carbohydrates were the common predictor for both GI and GL, with total fruits and Mexican diets being additional predictors for GI. The median amount of carbohydrates to reach an acceptable GL < 20 was predicted as 33.95 g per meal (median: 3.59 meals daily) with a regression coefficient of 37.33 across all daily diets. Diets with greater carbohydrates and more meals needed to reach acceptable GL < 20 included smoothies, convenient diets, and liquids. Mexican diets were the common predictor for GI and carbohydrates per meal to reach acceptable GL < 20; with smoothies (12.04), high-school (5.75), fast-food (4.48), Korean (4.30), Chinese (3.93), and liquid diets (3.71) presenting a higher median number of meals. These findings could be used to manage diets for various populations in the precision-based e-health era.