| Literature DB >> 36079778 |
Alessio Abeltino1,2, Giada Bianchetti1,2, Cassandra Serantoni1,2, Cosimo Federico Ardito3, Daniele Malta3, Marco De Spirito1,2, Giuseppe Maulucci1,2.
Abstract
Development of predictive computational models of metabolism through mechanistic models is complex and resource demanding, and their personalization remains challenging. Data-driven models of human metabolism would constitute a reliable, fast, and continuously updating model for predictive analytics. Wearable devices, such as smart bands and impedance balances, allow the real time and remote monitoring of physiological parameters, providing for a flux of data carrying information on user metabolism. Here, we developed a data-driven model of end-user metabolism, the Personalized Metabolic Avatar (PMA), to estimate its personalized reactions to diets. PMA consists of a gated recurrent unit (GRU) deep learning model trained to forecast personalized weight variations according to macronutrient composition and daily energy balance. The model can perform simulations and evaluation of diet plans, allowing the definition of tailored goals for achieving ideal weight. This approach can provide the correct clues to empower citizens with scientific knowledge, augmenting their self-awareness with the aim to achieve long-lasting results in pursuing a healthy lifestyle.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; diet plans; digital nutrition; forecasting; gated recurrent unit; metabolism; wearables
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079778 PMCID: PMC9460345 DOI: 10.3390/nu14173520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Time series describing user metabolism. (A) Representative time series for weight and EB. (B) Representative time series for food composition.
Figure 2Train and test loss function (Mean Absolute Error) versus the number of epochs.
Concept of WFS.
|
|
Columns represent input values at time t. Input (t − k); …; Input (t − 1) represent covariates, while w (t − k); …; w (t) represent the target variable (weight). Rows represent predictions at time t + 1, t + 2, …, t + n. ‘known’ means that the value is taken from the dataset of actual values, ‘simulated’ indicates that the value is an input of a simulated diet plan, ‘predict’ indicates that the value is predicted from the neural network.
Results of the hyperparameter tuning for each user.
| User | Number of Neurons | Activation Function | Dropout Rate | Epochs | Batch Size | Lookback | Seasonal Terms | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 |
| 0.2 | 50 | 32 | 7 | No | 0.47 |
| 1 | 200 |
| 0.2 | 200 | 128 | 4 | No | 0.49 |
| 2 | 150 |
| 0.2 | 50 | 64 | 5 | No | 0.31 |
| 3 | 100 |
| 0.2 | 50 | 128 | 5 | No | 0.4 |
Figure 3Test-train forecasting for all users (U0, U1, U2 and U3) with the relative root mean squared value.
Figure 4Comparison between actual data and WFV and WFS results for User 2.
Figure 5Effects of diet plans on user metabolism. (A) WFS performed at different EB values on the data of User 2, keeping constant the percentage of macronutrient intake (50%, 20%, 30%, respectively). Weight data were fitted with a second order polynomial. (B) Weight variation calculated from the first and last values of the fit of the second grade versus the EB value and for each user.
Metabolic plasticity m and quality factor q for each user.
| User |
| Quality Factor (q) [kg] |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.56·10−3 | 0.77 |
| 1 | 0.47·10−3 | −0.13 |
| 2 | 2.03·10−3 | 0.26 |
| 3 | 0.30·10−3 | −0.06 |
Figure 6Personalized nutritional intervention plan for User 2. In the first 7 days, the actual weight trend is shown (black line, gray shaded area). Along this trend, WFS for the personalized plan is reported (green line). As a control, WFS when covariates retained the actual values is reported (red line).
Comparison of weight predictions between statistical and data-driven models (PMA).
| User | Age | Sex | Height (cm) | ∆ | ∆ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 27 | M | 183 | 88.7 | 0.3 ± 0.37 | 0.31 ± 0.031 |
| 1 | 52 | M | 186 | 74.25 | 0.4 ± 0.25 | 0.38 ± 0.038 |
| 2 | 44 | M | 175 | 73.45 | 0.72 ± 0.12 | 0.35 ± 0.035 |
| 3 | 51 | F | 160 | 55.25 | 0.27 ± 0.21 | 0.4 ± 0.04 |
Figure 7(A) calculated with PMA and with statistical models with respect to age of users. (B) calculated with PMA and with statistical models with respect to BMI of users. For the statistical model, an error of 15% was considered, while for PMA, it was considered as an error of the RMSE of the WFS.