
==== Front
Adv Nutr
Adv Nutr
Advances in Nutrition
2161-8313
2156-5376
American Society for Nutrition

S2161-8313(24)00098-X
10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100264
100264
Review
Artificial Intelligence in Malnutrition: A Systematic Literature Review
Janssen Sander MW
Bouzembrak Yamine yamine.bouzembrak@wur.nl
⁎
Tekinerdogan Bedir
Information Technology Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
⁎ Corresponding author. yamine.bouzembrak@wur.nl
04 7 2024
9 2024
04 7 2024
15 9 10026412 4 2024
3 6 2024
26 6 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Malnutrition among the population of the world is a frequent yet underdiagnosed problem in both children and adults. Development of malnutrition screening and diagnostic tools for early detection of malnutrition is necessary to prevent long-term complications to patients’ health and well-being. Most of these tools are based on predefined questionnaires and consensus guidelines. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) allows for automated tools to detect malnutrition in an earlier stage to prevent long-term consequences. In this study, a systematic literature review was carried out with the goal of providing detailed information on what patient groups, screening tools, machine learning algorithms, data types, and variables are being used, as well as the current limitations and implementation stage of these AI-based tools. The results showed that a staggering majority exceeding 90% of all AI models go unused in day-to-day clinical practice. Furthermore, supervised learning models seemed to be the most popular type of learning. Alongside this, disease-related malnutrition was the most common category of malnutrition found in the analysis of all primary studies. This research provides a resource for researchers to identify directions for their research on the use of AI in malnutrition.

Keywords

machine learning
decision support
malnutrition
nutritional assessment
nutritional screening tool
personalized nutrition
precision nutrition
Abbreviations

AI artificial intelligence

DSS decision support systems

GLIM Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition

ML machine learning

MUST Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool

SLR systematic literature review
==== Body
pmc Statement of Significance

This study highlights the critical gap between the development and clinical implementation of artificial intelligence tools for malnutrition detection, advocating for their adoption to enhance early diagnosis and patient outcomes.

Introduction

The WHO has declared healthy aging a priority of its work on aging between 2016 and 2030 and has come up with a global strategy and action plan related to aging and health from 2016 to 2030 [1]. Malnutrition is a critical and global concern that requires continuous intervention strategy.

Currently, 1 of 10 people is older than 65 y; the WHO has estimated this number to be 1 of 6 in 2050. Malnutrition is an increasing health problem in people older than 65 y even in developed countries and in nursing homes, hospitals, and acute care units [2]. With this ever-increasing number of elderly population throughout the world, the potential number of patients with malnutrition will see a significant increase further highlighting the emphasis of the problem [3].

Not only adults but also many children in the world experience malnutrition. Malnutrition in children can be classified as stunting (i.e., too short for their age), wasting (i.e., too thin for their age), and overweight (i.e., too heavy for their age). The WHO published updated prevalence numbers in 2023: 148 million children younger than 5 y in the world experience stunting, 45 million wasting, and 37 million overweight globally [4]. These numbers reflect the need for interventions worldwide.

Malnutrition is a multifaceted concept that can be seen as an umbrella term that serves as an overarching theme for understanding various nutritional conditions and their associated physiologic consequences. Recent efforts from the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism have been made to come up with a definition. Malnutrition can be defined as “a state resulting from lack of intake or uptake of nutrition that leads to altered body composition (decreased fat free mass) and body cell mass leading to diminished physical and mental function and impaired clinical outcome from disease”[5].

Owing to the complex nature of malnutrition, it can be hard to distinguish between other conditions that seem very similar on the surface, such as cachexia or sarcopenia. A detailed taxonomy is depicted in Figure 1 [5]. Furthermore, different screening tools are used: for example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) [6], Mini Nutritional Assessment [7], Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) [8], and WHO z-scores [9]. Many of these tools are patient group specific and therefore lack generalizability. To date, no 1 golden standard for diagnosing malnutrition exists [10]. Because of this issue, international efforts have been made by Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) to come up with diagnostic criteria that may be used by health care professionals globally to diagnose malnutrition in patients [11].FIGURE 1 The malnutrition taxonomy [5].

FIGURE 1

Furthermore, the WHO has created standard weight-for-age, weight-for-height, and height-for-age scores. These are used alongside BMI standards to determine whether a child is malnourished [9]. Both initiatives aim to provide a standardized framework for diagnosing malnutrition.

However, the treatment of malnutrition is a multidisciplinary effort, therefore it can be taxing on the health care system. Because of this, many cases of malnutrition go unnoticed, which leads to further complication, increasing the economic impact, productivity, and prosperity [12,13].

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) use aid in performing some of the tasks. One technique that has recently benefited from AI enhancements is decision support systems (DSS), which assist professionals in making complex decisions [14]. This brought rise to the clinical decision support systems, which have proven to be useful but yet to reach widespread implementation [15]. These may be used by health care professionals to aid them in the decision-making process on treatment options or diagnosis (e.g., to treat malnutrition or cancer). The distinction being in the specificity. Clinical decision support systems are tailored for use within the medical setting, compared with DSS that are more general and encompass various decision-assisting frameworks. In this article, both will be referred to as DSS for readability purposes; nonetheless, it is of importance for the reader to understand the aforementioned difference.

The field of medicine has been using both simple and more complex DSS in the past decade. However, in the field of clinical nutrition, DSS research has been lagging. Modern studies show improvements in both diagnostic and screening tools compared with traditional methods. Although the DSS progress related to clinical nutrition has been slow, it has been proven to be very promising [16,17].

Further research into the topic of DSS in malnutrition is required so that these systems can be implemented in practice. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to find a systematic literature review (SLR) on DSS use in malnutrition. This study represents a pioneering effort that paves the way for systematically reviewing the latest knowledge on DSS in the field of clinical nutrition related to malnutrition. In this article, an SLR was conducted with the aim to discover and compile existing research on DSS and give a comprehensive and complete overview of all research to date.

Review Protocol

The guidelines used in this SLR are the ones created by Kitchenham and Charters [18]. These are guidelines created for conducting SLRs in the field of software engineering adapted from guidelines based on SLRs in the medical field. As the topic of this article extends over both fields, these guidelines are a reasonable choice to use. Using these guidelines [15], a protocol was carefully constructed, which is depicted in Figure 2 [18]. The initial phase involved formulating research questions, which guided the development of our search strategy and the resulting search terms in step 2. Alongside the creation of the search query, a pilot search was conducted with the aim of identifying relevant keywords. Furthermore, step 2 included the identification of relevant digital libraries. The definition of the search query was an iterative process, where the output of 1 search query was used to alter the subsequent search query. In step 3, we established specific criteria for selecting relevant studies. Subsequently in the fourth step, we applied these criteria to the search results, resulting in a collection of relevant studies. These studies were then judged using the quality assessment method. Step 5 was the creation of a data extraction from that allowed useful data extraction from the selected articles. The third, fourth, and fifth steps were iterative. In the sixth step, we outlined techniques for data synthesis and presentation of the data. Ultimately, in the seventh and final step, the bibliometric networks and their use case were discussed.FIGURE 2 Review protocol for this systematic literature review based on the study by Kitchenham et al. [18].

FIGURE 2

Research questions

The following 4 research questions were derived to which the SLR should propose a solution:• Q1: What type of manual malnutrition tool is being used?○ Setting, patient group

Malnutrition tools relate to specific patient groups and settings in which they are used. This research question is aimed at exploring the most prevalent tools and settings.• Q2: Which machine learning (ML) techniques have been used in these studies?○ Q2.1: Supervised, unsupervised, or semisupervized or reinforcement learning?⁃ What type of algorithms are being used?

○ Q2.2: What problems was the algorithm assigned to?

• Q3: What is the stage of implementation?

The stage of implementation is of importance to gain a deeper understanding of how many proposed solutions are used in day-to-day practice. Exploring the stage of implementation will help to quantify this.• Q4: What are the challenges when using DSS in malnutrition?

Search strategy and selection criteria

To answer the research questions, an SLR was conducted. The following digital libraries were used: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. This selection was based on expert knowledge in the field of nutrition and data science. The field of malnutrition and ML is rapidly advancing so all articles that were published over 10 y ago were excluded from this review. Furthermore, the targeted sources were journal articles, conference articles, and white articles. The automated search was done using a search query. Every syntax was altered to suit different libraries but, in general, the query looked like this:“(Malnutrition OR Undernutrition) AND (Artificial Intelligence OR Machine Learning) AND (tool∗ OR App∗)”

The full list of queries sorted per library can be found in Supplemental Table 1. Next to the automated search through the previously described libraries, a manual search was executed. The manual search was done by going through the references of the articles that were found by the search string. We looked at both the sources the authors referenced and the ones they were referenced by and included all relevant articles. The results of the search query are presented in Table 1. The order of the libraries in the articles is based on the order of use. Naturally, the number of useful articles reduced owing to the duplicate articles that were found. In total, 330 articles were identified after the automated search and 4 with the manual search, totaling to 334.TABLE 1 Overview of search results and study selection

TABLE 1Source	After automated and manual search	After applying selection criteria	After reading complete study and quality assessment	
PubMed	24	13	10	
Scopus	174	39	27	
Google Scholar	21	2	2	
Web of Science	111	10	6	
Manual Search	4	4	4	
Total	334	68	49	

Study selection criteria

To avoid overlooking any pertinent articles, a broad search query was used, resulting in a substantial number of articles, from which we filtered the most relevant ones using the selection criteria presented in Table 2. Initially, each article was individually assessed by reviewing its title and abstract to check for relevance. This brought down the number to 68 articles (Table 1). Next, the articles were read in their entirety and the selection criteria applied again. This lowered the total number of included articles to 49 (Table 1).TABLE 2 Study selection criteria

TABLE 2No.	Criterion	
EC1	Articles without full-text available	
EC2	Articles not written in English	
EC3	Articles not in line with research question	
EC4	Articles that used manual tools	
EC5	Articles that are experience and survey articles	
EC6	Duplicate publication from multiple sources	

Study quality assessment

Following the inclusion of the 49 articles, the assessment of quality was done using the assessment quality criteria. These quality criteria are based on a previous study [18]. The quality assessment was executed by reading the entire article and applying the quality criteria presented in Table 3. The quality assessment was based on a score system. If answered yes, the article was rewarded with 1 point; if answered partially, the article was rewarded with 0.5 points; and if the answer is no, the article was rewarded with 0 points. A total of 8 points can be given to an article if all questions are answered with yes, rewarding 1 point each. For example, Q7 (Are the negative findings presented?), when reading the article, we looked for the limitations at the usual place (discussion section of the article). If they were present, 1 point was awarded. If the authors mentioned limitations but not at the usual place or the limitations were poorly described, 0.5 points were awarded, and if the limitations were not mentioned at all, 0 points were awarded. The decision to exclude all articles with a quality score lower than 4 was made to ensure high-quality input of primary studies for this SLR. Five low-quality articles were excluded, resulting in 49 articles that were included in the final SLR. The distribution of the study quality assessment score of all articles can be found in Figure 3.TABLE 3 The quality assessment criteria presented by Kitchenham et al. [18] as a means of assessing article quality

TABLE 3No.	Questions	
Q1	Are the aims of the study clearly stated?	
Q2	Are the scope and context of the study clearly stated?	
Q3	Is the proposed solution clearly explained and validated by an empirical study?	
Q4	Are the variables used in the study likely to be valid and reliable?	
Q5	Is the research process documented adequately?	
Q6	Are all study questions answered?	
Q7	Are the negative findings presented?	
Q8	Are the main findings stated clearly in terms of creditability, validity, and reliability?	

FIGURE 3 Primary study quality assessment scores. The line indicates the cutoff value to maintain high quality for this systematic literature review.

FIGURE 3

Data extraction

The 49 articles were read in their entirety and the required data extracted. To efficiently store all data, a data extraction form was created in Microsoft Excel. We first read 3 randomly selected articles and defined the initial variables in the extraction form on this. Next, 5 additional articles were randomly selected from which we extracted the data and added any new important variables. Iterations of this process were executed until all data from all studies was present in the data extraction form. This form contains 26 elements, which cover but are not limited to basic information like the author names, date of extraction, library it was extracted from, and title (Table 4). Next to this, other information was extracted such as the type of algorithm, type of malnutrition, traditional tools used, and identified problems (Table 4). We used the extraction form to pinpoint the most used algorithms and malnutrition diagnostic tools in the literature.TABLE 4 Data extraction form

TABLE 4Information extracted from the articles	
ID

Title

Downloaded: yes/no

Date of extraction

Year of publication

Author name(s)

Repository

Type

	Quality assessment

Type of malnutrition

Type of patient group

Setting

Type of machine learning

Based on what original tool

Type of algorithm

Purpose of created tool

	Software used

Implementation stage

Goal of model

Country of origin

Variables used for input

Reason for writing

Challenges presented

Proposed solution

	

Data synthesis and bibliometric networks

The data synthesis and visualization were the last part of the review process. The goal was to define common theme under umbrella terms to digest the information and make it viable to analyze the data. The data from step 5 were used as input. For example, malnutrition, being a very broad term, was divided into 3 big categories: disease-related malnutrition, non–disease-related malnutrition, and children, the latter referring to malnutrition research in children (younger than 18 y). This allowed very simple visualization of the different domains in an easy and understandable way without losing out any valuable information. Next, we synthesized any synonyms present. For example, any variation of height-for-weight z-scores used in malnutrition related to children was combined into WHO z-scores for ease of finding a trend in the data.

Furthermore, the included primary studies were further analyzed using the bibliometric network methods such as citations, keywords, and co-authorship analysis as demonstrated previously [[19], [20], [21]]. Overlay visualizations were built to visualize the bibliometric networks using the open access tool named VOSviewer1. The VOSviewer tool allows for bibliometric networks to be created ranging from citation relations between publications to the relationship between keywords of all included primary studies like has been showcased by a previous study [22]. Overlay visualization makes use of colored nodes. Each node indicates a certain property of said node. For instance, a node may represent a used keyword or author of a primary study. The size indicates the prevalence of this keyword or author. The color is used to create clusters of nodes [23,24].

Results

In this section, the general findings regarding the 49 primary articles will be discussed. The rest of the section is dedicated to presenting the results for each research question in a chronologic order.

Number of publications per year and country

The 49 primary studies are listed in Supplemental Table 2. The most popular digital library was Scopus with 174 hits converting to a final total of 39 including primary studies, which can be seen in Table 1. The most popular publication channel is PLoS One with 6 publications. It is noteworthy that most of the journals only occurred once in the list of publication channels, suggesting there is no one specific channel that is the best source for primary studies. The year-wise distribution can be seen in Figure 4, which shows that the most articles were published in 2021 and 2022 with a combined total of 30. Figure 5 shows the distribution of studies done by country. Notably, most studies (10 studies) were conducted in the United States, which is a significant portion of all studies in this SLR.FIGURE 4 Year-wise distribution of the primary studies.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5 Distribution of primary studies per country.

FIGURE 5

Figure 6 shows the network visualization of the keywords used based on all included primary studies. This visualization was created using VOSviewer. Each node represents a single keyword that was used. The size of the circle is related to the prevalence of each keyword. The co-occurrence of the keywords is denoted by the length of the lines. The nodes that are closer together indicate that these keywords often occur in combination with one another. This indicates that these nodes are correlated. In general, the closer the keywords are located together in the visualization, the more strongly they are related to one another based on bibliographic coupling. The color of each node indicates their determined cluster. In the visualization in FIGURE 6, FIGURE 11 clusters were identified. These consist of malnutrition-related indicators (in red), malnutrition prediction (in brown), algorithm related (in blue), diet (in purple), DSS (in light blue), clinical assessment (in turquoise), AI (in pink), ASPEN (in gray), ML (in orange), system solutions (in green), and body composition (in light red).FIGURE 6 Network visualization of the keywords used in the included primary studies.

FIGURE 6

Next to this, another visualization for the keywords was created. The VOSviewer tool allows for sorting per year of publication. Figure 4 shows the distribution of articles published per year. The same keywords that were used in the network visualization of Figure 6 were used as input for the visualization of Figure 7. This allowed for the identification of publication topic trends. For instance, Figure 7 shows that most research in 2018 was done on nutritional states and clinical decision support (in blue). In the following years, this shifted toward malnutrition (in turquoise) in a broader scheme and finally to algorithms and AI (in yellow).FIGURE 7 Network visualization of keywords sorted per year of primary study publication.

FIGURE 7

RQ 1: What type of malnutrition tool is being used?

The current way to classify malnutrition is using some sort of guidelines tools or so-called questionnaires depending on the setting. In hospitals, it is common practice to make use of these questionnaires that consist of questions relating to variables or determinants of malnutrition in practice. This does not mean that patients get to send these questionnaires but rather a trained health care professional like a nurse or registered dietician uses these to assess their patients.

There is an important distinction between the screening questionnaire and the diagnostic questionnaire. The first is used to screen for existing risk of developing malnutrition, the latter is used to diagnose a patient with malnutrition. In practice, all patients who get admitted to a hospital are screened for their initial risk after which if risk hits some sort of threshold value, a trained professional, mostly a dietician, is then called upon to do the diagnosis using the diagnostic questionnaires like GLIM [11].

For example, MUST [25] may be used to assess initial risk of malnutrition in hospitals; subsequently, the GLIM criteria may be used to diagnose the type of malnutrition [26]. Notably, not a single article discussed any screening tools for child malnutrition although these do exist.

In Figure 8, the type of malnutrition screening and diagnostic tools is depicted. The most used diagnostic tool was the WHO z-scores, with a total of 17. The most used screening tools were MUST and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment [26], both having a total of 4. However, 17 articles did not specify any screening or diagnostic tool use; this is very interesting given the fact that these are needed to accurately assess a person’s nutritional status. Without these, it would be hard to formulate a good diagnostic model let alone a DSS that aids in the screening and diagnostics of malnutrition.FIGURE 8 Type of manual tool used: diagnostic tools: Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), WHO; screening tools: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), and Composite Index of Anthropometric Failure (CIAF).

FIGURE 8

Common patient groups and research setting

Because these tools are setting and patient group specific, the most common setting and patient group are discussed next. The most common setting is depicted in Figure 9, with 26 articles in the hospital setting. The most common patient group being hospital patients, with a total of 22 article (Figure 10). Four articles did not specify their setting, or this information could not be extracted from the text. Real-world meaning any primary study that covered research that was conducted without a specific setting (e.g., country data, regional data, or free-living individuals). Interestingly, one can see that the real-world setting is closely related to the number of articles mentioning research into child malnutrition. This is because much child-related research was conducted using country-specific data or regional data. Only a handful of studies investigated hospitalized children. Adversely, most articles covering the topic of disease-related malnutrition were done in institutionalized adults.FIGURE 9 Related setting count.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10 Type of patient group count.

FIGURE 10

RQ 2: Which ML techniques have been used in these studies?

There are 4 general types of learning: supervised, unsupervised, semisupervized, and reinforcement learning. Supervised learning is characterized by the data having available labels, so the predicted value or class is known. This means the outcome may be verified against the truth. Unsupervised learning is the opposite where data occur without any labels at all, and the algorithm aims to find patterns in the data or partition them based on similarity. Semisupervized learning can be seen as a bridge between the latter 2. These algorithms make use of a subset of data being labeled while a big portion of the data are not. This is used to speed up the labeling part and improve accuracy of the algorithm. Finally, reinforcement learning is where a so-called agent exists in a dynamic environment and is penalized or rewarded for the decisions that it makes within this environment. The algorithm will be updated after each iteration to either maximize the potential reward or minimize the penalization or both at the same time [27].

Supervised, unsupervised, semisupervized, or reinforcement learning?

Table 5 [[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]] displays the amount of the different types of learning that have been used and their corresponding most used algorithm. It is important to note that when neural networks (NN) were used, all authors would comment on the data input to decide whether it was used as a supervised or unsupervised learning algorithm. The chosen class would get +1 because it would depend on the task the NN is applied to. The term other refers to anything that was outside of the ML tasks such as Arden syntax, fuzzy expert map, and rule-based systems, which all occurred only once. The most frequent type of learning was supervised learning with 47 articles. Captivatingly, the number of studies mentioning reinforcement learning was 0.TABLE 5 Studies split up per learning category and the most used algorithm per category

TABLE 5Type of learning	Study ID	Top used algorithms	
Supervised	Yalçın et al., 2023 [28]; Timsina et al., 2020 [25]; Yin et al., 2021 [26,29]; Nel et al., 2022 [30]; Kiss et al., 2023 [31]; Wang et al., 2023 [32]; Momand et al., 2022 [33]; Khan and Yunus, 2023 [34]; Di Martino et al., 2021 [35]; Aryuni et al., [36]; Usman and Kopczewska 2022 [37]; Checchi et al., 2022 [38]; Ren et al., 2022 [39]; Sparapani et al., 2022 [40]; Islam et al., 2022 [41]; Kiss et al., 2022 [42]; Bitew et al., 2022 [43]; Fenta et al., 2021 [44]; Rahman et al., 2021 [45]; Vasu et al., 2021 [46]; Talukder and Ahammed, 2020 [47]; How and Chan, 2020 [48]; Kraamwinkel et al., 2019 [49]; Ohyver et al., 2017 [50]; Khare et al., 2017 [51]; Schüttler et al., 2017 [52]; Henrique et al., 2020 [53]; Ganju et al., 2021 [54]; Khudri et al., 2023 [55]; Browne et al., 2021 [56]; Tagi et al., 2022 [57]; Ren et al., 2023 [58]; Maasthi et al., 2023 [59]; Siwathammarat et al., 2023 [60]; Jin et al., [61], 2022; Sujatha et al., 2021 [62]	RF, LR, NN, DT, SVM	
	
Unsupervised	Yin et al., 2021 [26]; Nel et al., 2022 [30]; Dhanamjayulu et al., 2022 [63]; Tagi et al., 2022 [57]; Siwathammarat et al., 2023 [60]; Yin et al., 2021 [64]; Bondi et al., 2022 [65]	NN	
	
Semisupervized	How and Chan, 2020 [48]	—	
	
Reinforcement learning	—	—	
	
Qualitative sudy	Kirk et al., 2022 [27]; Sharma et al., 2020 [66]; Besculides et al., 2023 [67]; Paulsen et al., 2021 [68] Paulsen et al., 2019 [69]; Tay et al., 2022 [70]; Wang et al., 2022 [71]	—	
	
Other	Petrauskas et al., 2021 [72]; de Bruin et al., 2018 [73]	Arden Syntax, Ranker algorithm	
Abbreviations: DT, decision tree; LR, logistic regression; NN, neural network; RF, random forest, SVM, support vector machine.

What types of algorithms are being used?

When designing an optimal DSS, it is very important to not only investigate the type of learning that was used but also the type of algorithms that were used to execute the task. Every algorithm has its own pros and cons and should always be judged with context in mind. Important to note is that many primary studies used multiple algorithms either in subsequent order or to compare them with each other. Whenever an algorithm was used, it was denoted as +1 in assigned column (e.g., random forest is compared with logistic regression, both would get +1). The cumulative for all algorithms used therefore exceeds the total amount of primary studies. Finally, all forms of decision trees were added together for ease of interpretation.

Figure 11 shows the types of algorithms that were used. Random forest was the most popular algorithm, used in 24 articles. From the graph, it can be seen that many algorithms were only used once. The algorithm with the least uses were hierarchical clustering, Bayesian network, ordinary linear regression, light gradient boosting, principal component analysis, generalized additive models, and k-means clustering, with 1 article for each algorithm.FIGURE 11 Types of algorithms used. BART, Bayesian additive regression tree; BN, Bayesian network; DT, decision tree; EN, elastic net regularization; GAM, generalized additive model; KNN, K-nearest neighbor; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; LR, logistic regression; NB, naive Bayes; NN, neural network; OLR, ordinary linear regression; PCA, principal component analysis; RF, random forest; SVM, support vector machine; XGBoost, extreme gradient boosting.

FIGURE 11

What problems are the algorithms assigned to?

There are a handful of different tasks that exist. Some of these include classification, regression, dimensionality reduction, clustering, anomaly detection, and recommendation [27]. This study focused on regression and classification. Originally, all forms were included but no cases were found for anything except classification and regression. Only few articles used dimensionality reduction as a data preprocessing step. Classification refers to assigning a group label to data points to sort the data into different groups based on specific features. Regression refers to trend-based forecasting, for example, predicting male bodyweight based on the bodyweight of 10 previously measured males.

Regression was the most common type of task, used in 32 studies. Six studies were qualitative, and 1 study did not specific anything about a task. It was not possible to extract this information from the context. Classification was used in 15 times. The total count is depicted in Figure 12.FIGURE 12 Types of tasks the algorithms were assigned to.

FIGURE 12

The next part strived to create a resource for those who plan on building their own models to apply regression or classify malnutrition in the future. To build good models to use for a DSS, the best input variables need to be selected. To do this, the primary studies were used as references to determine the most used variables in literature. Over 100 different variables were identified throughout the 49 primary studies. Several variables, such as reason for hospitalization and cancer site, encompass several subcategories or specific details like the cancer site. To give a trustworthy estimate, these are all enumerated in the top 10 as a newly created category (Table 6). This was done by hand to avoid missing any relevant data. Any variables that were very similar were added together. For instance, “age in years,” “age in months,” “age in days,” and “months since birth” would all be condensed into “age” because they mean the same thing. It must be stated that in doing so, some minor details may be lost in return for the readers’ convenience.TABLE 6 Top 10 most used variables split by type of malnutrition

TABLE 6Type of malnutrition	Top 10 most used variables for model building	
Disease-related malnutrition	Weight, BMI, age, serum albumin, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, serum sodium, blood urea nitrogen, serum potassium, platelets	
	
Nondisease-related malnutrition (adult)	Age, residence, region, education, currently breastfeeding, currently working, marital status, currently pregnant, children ever born, partner’s education	
	
Nondisease-related malnutrition (child)	Age; sex/gender; height-for-age < −2 SD; wasting weight-for-height < −2 SD and underweight; weight-for-age < −2 SD of the WHO Child Growth Standards median + 1; BMI; weight; height; birth weight; gestational age; mother age; mother education (none, primary, secondary, or higher)	
Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index; SD, standard deviation; WHO, World Health Organization.

Finally, note that for the variables that have the same number of occurrences, the order of finding them was used. For example, weight is used 3 times, “BMI” and “age” are both used twice. In this case, “BMI” is put first because the article that was checked first had “BMI” and not “age.” This needs to be kept in mind when building the final model, and variable selection on your specific data should be done first.

RQ 3: What is the stage of implementation?

This research question is used to gage the state of implantation of the current DSS in the literature. Many models are developed and look wonderful in theory, however, might not work optimally or the way they are supposed to in practice.

Every primary study was carefully read in its entirety to look for any text regarding implementation. Most studies (i.e., 41 articles) mentioned the implementation did not mention the implementation phase of the DSS (Figure 13). This is a surprisingly large number given its importance. Applications were the most popular implementation method, observed in 4 articles. One primary study used a built-in e-mail module to e-mail the outcome to a desired person [63]. Two web applications and electronic patient record implementations were built.FIGURE 13 Implementation type count.

FIGURE 13

RQ 4: What are the challenges when using DSS in malnutrition?

All primary studies were read in their entirety after which all mentioned limitations and challenges were extracted and categorized. This resulted in 37 different limitations and challenges, which were divided over 5 categories: model, study design, sample size, representation, and data set. Some of the limitations are highlighted in Table 7 [[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34],36,[38], [39], [40],[42], [43], [44], [45],48,49,53,[55], [56], [57], [58],60,61,63,64,[67], [68], [69], [70], [71],73]. The other primary studies did not mention any limitations.TABLE 7 Limitations of primary studies sorted per category with their study ID

TABLE 7Category	Example of limitations per category	Study ID per category	
Model	- There is an apparent overoptimism in ML research that exists owing to nonrigorous methodologies.- Better algorithms or predictors in the model like boosting could have been used or using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator to get better predictors could have been used.

	Kirk et al., 2022 [27]; Yin et al., 2021 [26]; Checchi et al., 2022 [38]; Sparapani et al., 2022 [40]; Kiss et al., 2022 [42]; Fenta et al., 2021 [44]; Rahman et al., 2021 [45]; Kraamwinkel et al., 2019 [49]; Browne et al., 2021 [56]; Tagi et al., 2022 [57]; Ren et al., 2023 [58]; Yin et al., 2021 [64]; de Bruin et al., 2018 [73]; Dhanamjayulu et al., 2022 [63]; Aryuni et al., [36]; Tay et al., 2022 [70]; Bitew et al., 2022 [43]; How and Chan, 2020 [48]; Wang et al., 2022 [71]; Siwathammarat et al., 2023 [60]; Jin et al., 2022 [61]	
	
Study design	- Retrospective study design and secondary analysis of the data, which meant that some variables, such as cancer stage, and longer-term outcomes that may be important to consider were not available.

- Because this study is retrospective, no muscle mass data are available.

	Yalçın et al., 2023 [28]; Timsina et al., 2020 [25]; Yin et al., 2021 [29]; Besculides et al., 2023 [67]; Nel et al., 2022 [30]; Kiss et al., 2023 [31]; Wang et al., 2023 [32]; de Bruin et al., 2018 [73]; Paulsen et al., 2019 [69]; Paulsen et al. 2021 [68]; Khan and Yunus, 2023 [34]; Ren et al., 2022 [39]; Henrique et al., 2020 [53]	
	
Data set	- We did not have data on the clinical observations regarding the inflammation status, red cell distribution, or chronic use of steroids, which might have led to an underestimation of the number of patients with inflammation.

- Training and test sets were derived from the same study, meaning the model needs to be validated by prospective research. Finally, there was a slight imbalance in the data, which resulted in lower precision because there was a low number of people with malnutrition.

	Yin et al., 2021 [29]; Wang et al., 2023 [32]; Momand et al., 2022 [33]; Khan and Yunus, 2023 [34]; Jin et al., 2022 [61]; Rahman et al., 2021 [45]; Henrique et al., 2020 [53]; Khudri et al., 2023 [55]	
	
Representation	- The availability of a wide range of data may not be uniform in different hospital settings.

	Timsina et al., 2020 [25]; de Bruin et al., 2018 [73]	
	
Sample size	- Small sample size

	Yalçın et al., 2023 [28]; Dhanamjayulu et al., 2022 [63]; Henrique et al., 2020 [53]	

The model category represents the limitations and challenges that have to do with the building, interpretation or use of the ML model that was constructed. This is the biggest category with 21 primary studies allocated to it. One primary study mentioned the fact that the model could benefit from potentially better predictors, which could be identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression [38]. Another review mentioned that there is an apparent overoptimization in ML research that exists owing to nonrigorous testing [27].

The study design category represents all limitations and challenges that have to do with problems that could be addressed by changing the study layout. A total of 13 studies were allocated to this category. Multiple studies mentioned the fact that the use of a retrospective design limited their data availability because of not having access to current biomarker values or time series data [29,31,39,58].

The data set category represents the limitations and challenges that related to data-related issues. In total, 8 primary studies were allocated to this category. For instance, 1 primary study mentioned that their test and training data set were derived from the same study, which means that the model might perform better than if it were to be tested on never seen before data [32].

Two studies mentioned problems relating to the representation of their research. One of such discussed the problem of their research using many different data sets to build their model. However, this may not be possible in other hospitals, which means their model would be simpler and perform worse. In this sense, their model shows a very optimistic result [25].

Finally, the sample size category comprised all studies that mentioned their challenges related to a small sample size, which may interfere with their results. In total, 3 studies were allocated to this category.

Discussion

The following sections will be used to go over the discussion part of the present study. We aim to reflect on the results and relate it to all other relevant work and finally examine the threats to the validity of this study.

Reflection on the results

To our knowledge, this study represents the first SLR on DSS in malnutrition and thereby aims to pave the way for similar studies on DSS in malnutrition. A search was conducted, and over 300 articles were identified of which 49 primary studies were included in the final analysis. Each article received a quality assessment score.

The first interesting finding is that the focus of the research being conducted depends on the country of origin and its development. Figure 5 depicts the spread of published primary studies. Research groups from more developed countries tend to focus more on disease-related malnutrition whereas developing countries focused on nondisease-related malnutrition. This may be due to the urgency of the problem. When there is no food present for people to eat, the prevalence of acute malnutrition is many times higher than that in developed countries where there is an abundance of food. Another example would be crisis-stricken countries that do not have the luxury of food abundance, so changes to body composition lasting from overeating do not occur as often as acute malnutrition [38]. This makes it so that these research groups focus on the most pressing issues in their direct environment. The developed countries focus on the body composition changes leading to disease-related malnutrition, and the developing countries tend to focus on non–disease-related malnutrition, which is mostly related to food shortages.

Second, after all used malnutrition screening tools were identified, a gap between practice and the literature was identified. Only a few malnutrition tools were identified in literature although there are plenty of others available in practice as highlighted in “RQ 1: What type of malnutrition tool is being used?” section. Arguably, the most important ones are covered in this SLR. However, all the ones specified in the literature relate to general purpose questionnaires, meaning they are designed for all patient groups. There are several other tools created for specific patient groups, which were not used in the literature. Moreover, some universal tools like the NRS-2002 [74] were not identified in the literature. Interestingly, this gap between practice and the present literature presents opportunities to conduct experiments with these other tools and compare them with the tools used up until this point in the literature. An important aspect of patient-specific tools is the lack of generalizability. Many of the tools and models reviewed are specific to certain patient groups or types of malnutrition, which limits their broader applicability across diverse clinical settings or geographical regions. This demonstrate a need for conducting research on a broader subgroup of malnutrition population.

One of the intriguing things that stood out was the large number of supervised models that were used in the included primary studies; 49 primary studies were identified of which 40 made use of supervised models. Notably, zero studies were identified with either semisupervized learning or reinforcement learning. Reinforcement learning is a very promising ML technique that offers different benefits from all other forms of learning. This type of learning provides unique abilities that may be of use to a good DSS like the ability to learn feedback in the form of a reward or penalty. Semisupervized techniques like transfer learning may be of use to create good models with limited amounts of labeled data, saving not only time but also money by removing the need for manual annotation of data labels.

Finally, the importance of the implementation stage of a DSS was accentuated. The results showed that 9 of 10 presented solutions were not implemented. This is a vital part of designing a DSS because the DSS can be improved after it is fed new data by using techniques like reinforcement learning. To overcome future challenges, DSS needs to be used in practice to discover any existing issues or weaknesses to this system. This can in turn be used to improve DSS in the future. The current literature lacks adequate representation of this iterative process, offering significant potential for future research. Further, the lack of implementation is indicating a significant gap between model development and practical deployment, which may undermine the impact of these innovations. In the future, more research should be done. Some studies included in this review have already started to identify practical steps that allow for deployment of these models [15,68,69].

Related work

In recent years, the idea of using DSS of diagnosing or aiding in the treatment of malnutrition has become more popular. However, there is limited evidence of it being used and stated so in literature. Some studies have considered the use of DSS for diagnostic purposes to increase patient health outcomes. One of such studies is a SLR by Vasey et al. [75] on the association of clinician diagnostic performance with ML-based DSSs. This is a very well-designed study but does not cover the topic of malnutrition. Other articles have been published with regards to DSS based on ML but either they did not cover the topic of malnutrition or they were related to an intervention program using DSSs. Some scientists have used DSS as aid in treating malnutrition but not based on ML but based on existing guidelines and traditional tools [76]. Moreover, some intervention studies have been conducted about the role of ML in DSS [16,67]. However, this does not translate to specific research on malnutrition. The related work identified multiple use cases of DSSs in health care based on either existing guidelines or ML.

The main difference between this study and the related work is the use of the SLR format. This allows for discovery of information after which an overview was created. This in turn can be used to identify research gaps, which otherwise would go unnoticed. For example, we identified zero of 49 studies that made use reinforcement learning. This approach to DSS may yield new and useful results. It seems that many of the existing solutions presented in the literature are not implemented into daily practice. This is an important step to improve the health care system, which is the final goal. Interestingly, many screening tools for malnutrition screening tools like SNAQ, NRS-2002, or Strongkids are used in practice but were not documented a single time in the literature. This means that there is a gap between current tool use in practice and screening tools documented in the literature. This might be because journal articles were used and no gray literature. Including gray literature could change the outcome.

Challenges and opportunities of implementation

This section highlights challenges in integration, acceptance, and implementation of DSSs within the health care system despite their potential in clinical nutrition. First, increasing transparency of ML models used should be one of the key components of a well-designed model. One way is to use simulations to empirically evaluate the variability of model metrics and explanatory algorithms to observe whether covariates match the literature are necessary for increased transparency, reliability, and utility of ML methods [77]. This can be done with bootstrapping simulations to quantify the statistical distributions of model accuracy metrics. Simulations of these distributions have been proven to work well in a cross-study comparison setting in which model evaluation metrics need to be compared [78,79]. A great opportunity within ML research lies in the fact that ML models can be used to assess risk factors for a given disease. For instance, Huang and Huang [80] used ML to identify risk factors for insomnia, which provides insights into how similar methodologies can be adapted for identifying risk factors associated with malnutrition, thereby aiding in early diagnosis and intervention. Solving these challenges may prove to be worthwhile as it will allow for ML models to become more widespread in use as well as be able to fit in various clinical workflows. Being able to not only compare models across different clinical use cases but also improve transparency will allow for easy integration into various health care systems.

Second, many experts throughout different fields voiced their concerns regarding the need for rules and new policies in the field of AI. Ethics is one of the most relevant aspects that should at all-time be kept in our minds as we progress toward mainstream AI usage. Ethical and regulatory challenges posed by the novelty of AI systems in health care such as bias, data protection, or explainability must be addressed by states or regulatory bodies [81,82]. One of the driving factors behind this change is that AI is expected to play a major role in achieving the sustainable development goals of the United Nations [83]. As we go on to create more advanced AI systems and strive to integrate these in many aspects of our lives, it is of utmost importance to involve many different disciplines. In health care, not only physicians but also policy makers, public health experts, software engineers, and legal experts should be involved to create coherent policies or rules regarding the use of these new technologies [84,85]. In addition, many scientists stress the importance of more research in the field of the ethics of AI in health care [81,86].

Finally, resource allocation and training costs are an important aspect to accelerate the AI adoption. A scoping review was conducted to determine economic impact of AI in health care [87]. The authors conclude that more comprehensive economic assessments should be done to enable economic decisions for or against AI use. Moreover, medical professionals need comprehensive training in the use of AI tool to develop a cohesive relationship between AI and human efforts to improve patient care. This can be done by investing time and resources into training programs and the implementation phase of AI [88].

Addressing threats to validity

Every type of study design has its own pros and cons when it comes to validity. The SLR is prone to publication and selection bias as it uses data extraction and classification [89]. To address this threat of publication bias, the quality assessment score was used. This allowed for exclusion of studies that did not adhere to this quality threshold of ≥4 of 8 points. This resulted in the exclusion of 5 low-quality primary studies, which did not present any limitations. Second, the threat of selection bias refers to the situation in which the SLR fails to address all available data on a topic [89]. To address these, 4 different digital libraries were used (Table 1) until we noticed that many of the results were the same articles. Next to this, a manual search was conducted by using the snowballing and backward snowballing techniques. Exclusion criteria were established to remove any irrelevant articles (Table 2) to maintain only the relevant data. These criteria were discussed among all coauthors to ensure their quality. The importance of the validity of data extraction is of utmost importance as it directly influences the results of this SLR. To ensure the quality of the extraction process, 1 coauthor gave a second opinion on ≥15 articles. All articles that were not clearly fit for inclusion or exclusion were discussed with the other coauthors. Third, owing to the complexity of the topic of malnutrition, there is a risk that data synthesis caused information to be lost because of the limitation of available categories. The data synthesis was performed with the end goal of keeping as much distinction as possible between the concepts as possible. When in doubt, the original article was referenced to categorize the data. Finally, 49 high-quality primary studies were included. The possibility that some quality articles were missing will always remain; however, we believe we were able to identify a reasonable amount of input data for this SLR. Applying the aforementioned measure, we believe we have tackled the main threats to the validity.

Conclusions

In this study, an SLR was executed in the scientific literature of the past 5 y to identify the current state of DSS for malnutrition detection and classification using ML. To our knowledge, this is the first SLR on this topic and, therefore, aims to pave the way for all upcoming research related to DSS in malnutrition. The SLR approach allowed for useful data extraction and visualization. This led to novel insights into the current state of literature on DSS in malnutrition. First, we used bibliometric networks to visualize the most used keywords and trends of these keywords throughout the last 5 y. This visualization allowed for a deeper understanding of the current trends in literature. We identified that the current research on this topic is done roughly half of the time in non–disease-related malnutrition often relating to children and the other part is relating to disease-related malnutrition of institutionalized adults in the clinical setting. The first was mostly conducted in poorer less developed countries and the latter in more developed countries. In both, the most popular use case for DSS using ML was supervised learning algorithms that were mostly used for regression tasks. Other forms of learning such as reinforcement learning were absent in all included articles. We were able to identify the 10 most used variables for all included patient groups as well as identify the most used ML algorithms. Then, we highlighted the fact that over 90% of all created solutions have not been implemented in practice, underlining the apparent gap between practice and the current state of the literature on DSS in malnutrition. Furthermore, we were able to highlight the most encountered challenges in the present literature. The challenges we identified were not aimed to criticize the existing DSS but rather to pave the way for further maturation of these DSSs. Future studies can be executed to investigate the implementation of these DSS or other forms of learning such as reinforcement learning. In summary, practitioners can benefit from the results of this study by a thorough knowledge of potential challenges along the road of creating the best possible DSS for malnutrition.

Author contributions

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows – SMWJ: was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, writing—original draft, review, and editing; YB, BT: were responsible for conceptualization, methodology, supervision, review, and editing; and all authors: read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Funding

The authors reported no funding received for this study.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Y. Bouzembrak.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100264.

1 https://www.vosviewer.com
==== Refs
References

1 Rudnicka E. Napierała P. Podfigurna A. Męczekalski B. Smolarczyk R. Grymowicz M. The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing Maturitas 139 2020 6 11 10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018 32747042
2 Cereda E. Pedrolli C. Klersy C. Bonardi C. Quarleri L. Cappello S. Nutritional status in older persons according to healthcare setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence data using MNA Clin. Nutr. 35 6 2016 1282 1290 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.03.008 27086194
3 Wilmoth J.R. Bas D. Mukherjee S. Hanif N. Luchsinger G. World social report 2023: leaving no one behind in an ageing world January 2023 Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations
4 WHO, Levels and trends in child malnutrition [Internet]. [cited 12th of October 2023]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073791.
5 Cederholm T. Barazzoni R. Austin P. Ballmer P. Biolo G. Bischoff S.C. ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition Clin. Nutr. 36 1 2017 49 64 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.09.004 27642056
6 BAPEN. Malnutrition Advisory Group, a Standing Committee of BAPEN, Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool [Internet]. [cited 12th of October 2023]. Available from: https://www.bapen.org.uk/pdfs/must/must_full.pdf.
7 Nestle Nutrition Institute Mini Nutritional Assessment screening tool [Internet] [cited 12th of October 2023]. Available from: https://www.mna-elderly.com/sites/default/files/2021-10/mna-mini-english.pdf 1994
8 PT-Global Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) [Internet] [cited 12th of October 2023]. Available from: https://pt-global.org/page_id13/ 2014
9 World Health Organization Nutrition for Health and Development, WHO child growth standards: growth velocity based on weight, length and head circumference: methods and development 2009 World Health Organization, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547635
10 Patel V. Romano M. Corkins M.R. DiMaria-Ghalili R.A. Earthman C. Malone A. Nutrition screening and assessment in hospitalized patients: a survey of current practice in the United States Nutr. Clin. Pract. 29 4 2014 483 490 10.1177/0884533614535446 24993585
11 Cederholm T. Jensen G.L. Correia M.I.T.D. Gonzalez M.C. Fukushima R. Higashiguchi T. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition—a consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community Clin. Nutr. 38 1 2019 1 9 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.08.002 30181091
12 Saunders J. Smith T. Malnutrition: causes and consequences Clin. Med (Lond). 10 6 2010 624 627 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-6-624 21413492
13 European Parliament, The social and economic consequences of malnutrition in ACP countries [Internet]. [cited 12th of October 2023]. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/acp/dv/background_/background_en.pdf.
14 Smith C.J. Wong A.T.C. Advancements in artificial intelligence-based decision support systems for improving construction project sustainability: a systematic literature review Informatics 9 2 2022 43 10.3390/informatics9020043
15 Sutton R.T. Pincock D. Baumgart D.C. Sadowski D.C. Fedorak R.N. Kroeker K.I. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success NPJ Digit. Med. 3 2020 17 10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y 32047862
16 Sharma V. Sharma V. Khan A. Wassmer D.J. Schoenholtz M.D. Hontecillas R. Malnutrition, health and the role of machine learning in clinical setting Front. Nutr. 7 2020 44 10.3389/fnut.2020.00044 32351968
17 Lapp L. Egan K. McCann L. Mackenzie M. Wales A. Maguire R. Decision support tools in adult long-term care facilities: scoping review J. Med. Internet Res. 24 9 2022 e39681 10.2196/39681
18 Kitchenham B. Charters S.M. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering 2007 University of Durham Durham, United Kingdom
19 Pilkington A. Meredith J. The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations management—1980-2006: a citation/co-citation analysis J. Operat. Manag. 27 3 2009 185 202 10.1016/j.jom.2008.08.001
20 van Eck N.J. Waltman L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer Scientometrics 111 2 2017 1053 1070 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7 28490825
21 Bouzembrak Y. Klüche M. Gavai A. Marvin H.J.P. Internet of Things in food safety: literature review and a bibliometric analysis Trends Food Sci. Technol. 94 2019 54 64 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.11.002
22 Tran B.X. McIntyre R.S. Latkin C.A. Phan H.T. Vu G.T. Nguyen H.L.T. The current research landscape on the artificial intelligence application in the management of depressive disorders: a bibliometric analysis Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 16 12 2019 2150 10.3390/ijerph16122150 31216619
23 van Eck N.J. Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping Scientometrics 84 2 2010 523 538 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 20585380
24 van Eck N.J. Waltman L. Visualizing bibliometric networks Ding Y. Rousseau R. Wolfram D. Measuring scholarly impact 2014 Springer International Publishing 285 320 10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
25 Timsina P. Joshi H.N. Cheng F.Y. Kersch I. Wilson S. Colgan C. MUST-Plus: a machine learning classifier that improves malnutrition screening in acute care facilities J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 40 1 2021 3 12 10.1080/07315724.2020.1774821 32701397
26 Yin L. Song C. Cui J. Lin X. Li N. Fan Y. A fusion decision system to identify and grade malnutrition in cancer patients: machine learning reveals feasible workflow from representative real-world data Clin. Nutr. 40 8 2021 4958 4970 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.06.028 34358843
27 Kirk D. Kok E. Tufano M. Tekinerdogan B. Feskens E.J.M. Camps G. Machine learning in nutrition research Adv. Nutr. 13 6 2022 2573 2589 10.1093/advances/nmac103 36166846
28 Yalçın N. Kaşıkcı M. Çelik H.T. Demirkan K. Yiğit Ş. Yurdakök M. Development and validation of machine learning-based clinical decision support tool for identifying malnutrition in NICU patients Sci. Rep. 13 1 2023 10.1038/s41598-023-32570-z
29 Yin L. Lin X. Liu J. Li N. He X. Zhang M. Classification tree–based machine learning to visualize and validate a decision tool for identifying malnutrition in cancer patients JPEN J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 45 8 2021 1736 1748 10.1002/jpen.2070
30 Nel S. Feucht U.D. Nel A.L. Becker P.J. Wenhold F.A.M. A novel screening tool to predict severe acute malnutrition through automated monitoring of weight-for-age growth curves Mat. Child Nut. 8 3 2022 10.1111/mcn.13364
31 Kiss N. Steer B. de van der Schueren M. Loeliger J. Alizadehsani R. Edbrooke L. Machine learning models to predict outcomes at 30-days using Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition combinations with and without muscle mass in people with cancer J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 14 4 2023 1815 1823 10.1002/jcsm.13259 37259678
32 Wang X. Yang F. Zhu M. Cui H. Wei J. Li J. Development and assessment of assisted diagnosis models using machine learning for identifying elderly patients with malnutrition: cohort study J. Med. Internet Res. 25 2023 e42435 10.2196/42435
33 Momand Z. Zarinkhail M.S. Aryan M.F. Machine Learning Based Prediction of Edematous Malnutrition in Afghan Children Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 322 2022 235 245 10.1007/978-3-030-85990-9_20
34 Khan M.N.A. Yunus R.M. A hybrid ensemble approach to accelerate the classification accuracy for predicting malnutrition among under-five children in sub-Saharan African countries Nutrition 2023 108 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111947
35 Di Martino F. Delmastro F. Dolciotti C. Malnutrition Risk Assessment in Frail Older Adults using m-Health and Machine Learning IEEE International Conference on Communications 2021 10.1109/ICC42927.2021.9500471
36 Aryuni, M., Miranda, E., Kumbangsila, M., Yusrotis Zakiyyah, A., & Verasius Dian Sano, A. (n.d.). Comparison of Nutritional Status Prediction Models of Children under 5 Years of Age using Supervised Machine Learning.
37 Usman M. Kopczewska K. Spatial and Machine Learning Approach to Model Childhood Stunting in Pakistan: Role of Socio-Economic and Environmental Factors International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 17 2022 10.3390/ijerph191710967
38 Checchi F. Frison S. Warsame A. Abebe K.T. Achen J. Ategbo E.A. Can we predict the burden of acute malnutrition in crisis-affected countries? Findings from Somalia and South Sudan BMC Nutr 8 1 2022 92 10.1186/s40795-022-00563-2 36038942
39 Ren S.S. Zhu M.W. Zhang K.W. Chen B.W. Yang C. Xiao R. Machine learning-based prediction of in-hospital complications in elderly patients using GLIM-, SGA-, and ESPEN 2015-diagnosed malnutrition as a factor Nutrients 14 15 2022 3035 10.3390/nu14153035 35893889
40 Sparapani R.A. Teng B.Q. Hilbrands J. Pipkorn R. Feuling M.B. Goday P.S.,Novel Pediatric Height Outlier Detection Methodology for Electronic Health Records via Machine Learning with Monotonic Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 75 2 2022 210 214 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003492 35641892
41 Islam M.M. Rahman M.J. Islam M.M. Roy D.C. Ahmed N.A.M.F. Hussain S. Amanullah M. Abedin M.M. Maniruzzaman M. Application of machine learning based algorithm for prediction of malnutrition among women in Bangladesh International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering 3 2022 46 57 10.1016/j.ijcce.2022.02.002
42 Kiss N. Steer B. de van der Schueren M. Loeliger J. Alizadehsani R. Edbrooke L. Deftereos I. Laing E. Khosravi A. Comparison of the prevalence of 21 GLIM phenotypic and etiologic criteria combinations and association with 30-day outcomes in people with cancer: A retrospective observational study Clinical Nutrition 41 5 2022 1102 1111 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.03.024 35413572
43 Bitew F.H. Sparks C.S. Nyarko S.H. Machine learning algorithms for predicting undernutrition among under-five children in Ethiopia Public Health Nutrition 25 2 2022 269 280 10.1017/S1368980021004262 34620263
44 Fenta H.M. Zewotir T. Muluneh E.K. A machine learning classifier approach for identifying the determinants of under-five child undernutrition in Ethiopian administrative zones BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 21 1 2021 10.1186/s12911-021-01652-1
45 Rahman, S.M.J., Ahmed, N.A.M.F., Abedin, M.M., Ahammed, B., Ali, M., Rahman, M.J., & Maniruzzaman, M., Investigate the risk factors of stunting, wasting, and underweight among under-five Bangladeshi children and its prediction based on machine learning approach. PLoS ONE, 2021;16(6 June 2021). 10.1371/journal.pone.0253172.
46 Vasu S.R. Khare S. Gupta D. Jyotishi A. Features Explaining Malnutrition in India: A Machine Learning Approach to Demographic and Health Survey Data Communications in Computer and Information Science 1367 2021 87 99 10.1007/978-981-16-0401-0_7
47 Talukder A. Ahammed B. Machine learning algorithms for predicting malnutrition among under-five children in Bangladesh Nutrition 2020 78 10.1016/j.nut.2020.110861
48 How M.L. Chan Y.J. Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Predictive Insights for Ameliorating Global Malnutrition: A Human-Centric AI-Thinking Approach AI (Switzerland) 1 1 2020 10.3390/ai1010004
49 Kraamwinkel N. Ekbrand H. Davia S. Daoud A. The influence of maternal agency on severe child undernutrition in conflict-ridden Nigeria: Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects with machine learning PLoS ONE 4 1 2019 10.1371/journal.pone.0208937
50 Ohyver M. Moniaga J.V. Yunidwi K.R. Setiawan M.I. Logistic Regression and Growth Charts to Determine Children Nutritional and Stunting Status: A Review Procedia Computer Science 116 2017 232 241 10.1016/j.procs.2017.10.045
51 Khare, S., Kavyashree, S., Gupta, D., & Jyotishi, A., Investigation of Nutritional Status of Children based on Machine Learning Techniques using Indian Demographic and Health Survey Data. Procedia Computer Science, 12017;15:338–349. 10.1016/j.procs.2017.09.087.
52 Schüttler C. Hinderer M. Kraus S. Lang A.K. Prokosch H.U. Castellanos I. Requirements analysis for a clinical decision support system aiming at improving the artificial nutrition of Critically i11 patients Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 243 2017 137 141 10.3233/978-1-61499-808-2-137 28883187
53 Henrique J.R. Pereira R.G. Ferreira R.S. Keller H. de Van der Schueren M. Gonzalez M.C. Meira W. Correia M.I.T.D. Pilot study GLIM criteria for categorization of a malnutrition diagnosis of patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal operations: A pilot study of applicability and validation Nutrition 2023 79 80 10.1016/j.nut.2020.110961
54 Ganju A. Satyan S. Tanna V. Menezes S.R. AI for Improving Children’s Health: A Community Case Study Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2021 3 10.3389/frai.2020.544972
55 Khudri M.M. Rhee K.K. Hasan M.S. Ahsan K.Z. Predicting nutritional status for women of childbearing age from their economic, health, and demographic features: A supervised machine learning approach PLoS ONE 2023 18 25 10.1371/journal.pone.0277738
56 Browne, C., Matteson, D.S., McBride, L., Hu, L., Liu, Y., Sun, Y., Wen, J., & Barrett, C.B., Multivariate random forest prediction of poverty and malnutrition prevalence. PLoS ONE, 2021;16(9 September). 10.1371/journal.pone.0255519.
57 Tagi M. Tajiri M. Hamada Y. Wakata Y. Shan X. Ozaki K. Kubota M. Amano S. Sakaue H. Suzuki Y. Hirose J. Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence–Based Model for Estimating Leftover Liquid Food in Hospitals: Validation Study JMIR Formative Research 6 5 2022 10.2196/35991
58 Ren S.S. Zhang K.W. Chen B.W. Yang C. Xiao R. Li P.G. Machine learning-based prediction of complications and prolonged hospitalization with the GLIM criteria combinations containing calf circumference in elderly Asian patients Nutrients 15 19 2023 4146 10.3390/nu15194146 37836430
59 Maasthi M.J. Gururaj H.L. Ravi V.D.B. Almeshari M. Alzamil Y. Decision-making Support System for Predicting and Eliminating Malnutrition and Anemia Open Bioinfor. J. 1 2023 10.2174/0118750362246898230921054021
60 Siwathammarat, P., Jesadaporn, P., & Chawachat, J., Multi-Task Learning Frameworks to Classify Food and Estimate Weight From a Single Image. Proceedings of JCSSE 2023 - 20th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2023:368–373. 10.1109/JCSSE58229.2023.10202056.
61 Jin, B.T., Choi, M.H., Moyer, M.F., & Kim, D.A., Predicting malnutrition from longitudinal patient trajectories with deep learning. PLoS ONE, 2022;17(7 July). 10.1371/journal.pone.0271487.
62 Sujatha, K., Bhavani, N.P.G., Jayalatsumi, U., Kavitha, T., Krishnakumar, R., Kumar, K.S., Ganesan, A., Kalaivani, A., Hari, R., Antony Xavier Bronson, F., & Shafiya, S., Indigenous Non-invasive Detection of Malnutrition-Induced Anemia from Patient-Sourced Photos Using Smart Phone App. Springer Book Series. 2021. https://link.springer.com/bookseries/15179.
63 Dhanamjayulu C. Nizhal U.N. Maddikunta P.K.R. Gadekallu T.R. Iwendi C. Identification of malnutrition and prediction of BMI from facial images using real-time image processing and machine learning IET Image Process 16 3 2022 647 658 10.1049/ipr2.12222
64 Yin L. Liu J. Lin X. Li N. Guo J. Fan Y. Zhang L. Shi M. Zhang H. Chen X. Wang C. Deng L. Li W. Fu Z. Song C. Guo Z. Cui J. Shi H. Xu H. Nutritional features-based clustering analysis as a feasible approach for early identification of malnutrition in patients with cancer Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 75 8 2021 1291 1301 10.1038/s41430-020-00844-8 33462462
65 Bondi E. Chen H. Golden C.D. Behari N. Tambe M. Micronutrient Deficiency Prediction via Publicly Available Satellite Data AAAI 2021 www.aaai.org
66 Sharma V. Sharma V. Khan A. Wassmer D.J. Schoenholtz M.D. Hontecillas R. Bassaganya-Riera J. Zand R. Abedi V Malnutrition, Health and the Role of Machine Learning in Clinical Setting Front. Nutr. 2020 7 10.3389/fnut.2020.00044 32118026
67 Besculides M. Mazumdar M. Phlegar S. Freeman R. Wilson S. Joshi H. Implementing a machine learning screening tool for malnutrition: insights from qualitative research applicable to other machine learning-based clinical decision support systems JMIR Form. Res. 7 2023 e42262 10.2196/42262
68 Paulsen M.M. Varsi C. Andersen L.F. Process evaluation of the implementation of a decision support system to prevent and treat disease-related malnutrition in a hospital setting BMC Health Serv. Res. 21 1 2021 281 10.1186/s12913-021-06236-3 33766017
69 Paulsen M.M. Varsi C. Paur I. Tangvik R.J. Andersen L.F. Barriers and facilitators for implementing a decision support system to prevent and treat disease-related malnutrition in a hospital setting: qualitative study, JMIR Form Res 3 2 2019 e11890 10.2196/11890
70 Tay W. Quek R. Kaur B. Lim J. Henry C.J. Use of Facial Morphology to Determine Nutritional Status in Older Adults: Opportunities and Challenges JMIR Pub. Health Surveill. 8 7 2022 10.2196/33478
71 Wang W. Min W. Li T. Dong X. Li H. Jiang S. A review on vision-based analysis for automatic dietary assessment Trends Food Sci. Tech. 122 2022 223 237 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.02.017
72 Petrauskas V. Jasinevicius R. Damuleviciene G. Liutkevicius A. Janaviciute A. Lesauskaite V. Knasiene J. Meskauskas Z. Dovydaitis J. Kazanavicius V. Bitinaite-Paskeviciene R. Explainable artificial intelligence-based decision support system for assessing the nutrition-related geriatric syndromes App. Sci. (Switzerland) 11 24 2021 10.3390/app112411763
73 de Bruin J.S. Schuh C. Seeling W. Luger E. Gall M. Hütterer E. Kornek G. Ludvik B. Hoppichler F. Schindler K. Assessing the feasibility of a mobile health-supported clinical decision support system for nutritional triage in oncology outpatients using Arden Syntax Artif. Intell. Med. 92 2018 34 42 10.1016/j.artmed.2015.10.001 26563776
74 Kondrup J. Rasmussen H.H. Hamberg O. Stanga Z. Ad Hoc ESPEN Working Group, Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials Clin. Nutr. 22 3 2003 321 336 10.1016/S0261-5614(02)00214-5 12765673
75 Vasey B. Ursprung S. Beddoe B. Taylor E.H. Marlow N. Bilbro N. Association of clinician diagnostic performance with machine learning-based decision support systems: a systematic review JAMA Netw. Open 4 3 2021 e211276 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1276
76 Abdellatif A. Bouaud J. Belmin J. Seroussi B. Guideline-based decision support system for nursing homes: a case study with the management of malnutrition Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 272 2020 296 299 10.3233/SHTI200553 32604660
77 Huang A.A. Huang S.Y. Increasing transparency in machine learning through bootstrap simulation and shapely additive explanations PLoS One 18 2 2023 e0281922 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0281922
78 Huang A.A. Huang S.Y. Computation of the distribution of model accuracy statistics in machine learning: comparison between analytically derived distributions and simulation-based methods Health Sci. Rep. 6 4 2023 e1214 10.1002/hsr2.1214
79 Huang A.A. Huang S.Y. Exploring depression and nutritional covariates amongst US adults using shapely additive explanations Health Sci. Rep. 6 10 2023 e1635 10.1002/hsr2.1635
80 Huang A.A. Huang S.Y. Use of machine learning to identify risk factors for insomnia PLoS One 18 4 2023 e0282622 10.1371/journal.pone.0282622
81 Bouderhem R. Shaping the future of AI in healthcare through ethics and governance Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11 1 2024 416 10.1057/s41599-024-02894-w
82 Petersson L. Larsson I. Nygren J.M. Nilsen P. Neher M. Reed J.E. Challenges to implementing artificial intelligence in healthcare: a qualitative interview study with healthcare leaders in Sweden BMC Health Serv. Res. 22 1 2022 850 10.1186/s12913-022-08215-8 35778736
83 Wakunuma K. Ogoh G. Eke D.O. Akintoye S. Responsible AI, SDGs, and AI governance in Africa 2022 IST-Africa Conference, IST-Africa 2022 2022 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 10.23919/IST-Africa56635.2022.9845598
84 Jeyaraman M. Balaji S. Jeyaraman N. Yadav S. Unraveling the ethical enigma: artificial intelligence in healthcare Cureus 15 8 2023 e43262 10.7759/cureus.43262
85 Zhang J. Zhang Z.M. Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 23 1 2023 7 10.1186/s12911-023-02103-9 36639799
86 Naik N. Zeeshan Hameed B.M. Shetty D.K. Swain D. Shah M. Paul R. Legal and ethical consideration in artificial intelligence in healthcare: who takes responsibility? Front. Surg. 9 2022 862322 10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322
87 Wolff J. Pauling J. Keck A. Baumbach J. The economic impact of artificial intelligence in health care: systematic review J. Med. Internet Res. 22 2 2020 e16866 10.2196/16866
88 Lomis K. Jeffries P. Palatta A. Sage M. Sheikh J. Sheperis C. Artificial intelligence for health professions educators NAM Perspect 2021 2021 10.31478/202109a
89 Drucker A.M. Fleming P. Chan A.W. Research techniques made simple: assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews J. Invest. Dermatol. 136 11 2016 e109 e114 10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.021 27772550
