Cargando…

Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy

INTRODUCTION: Linear programming (LP) is often used within diet optimization to find, from a set of available food commodities, the most affordable diet that meets the nutritional requirements of an individual or (sub)population. It is, however, not always possible to create a feasible diet, as cert...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koenen, Melissa F., Balvert, Marleen, Fleuren, Hein
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9798409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36590216
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1056205
_version_ 1784860903083081728
author Koenen, Melissa F.
Balvert, Marleen
Fleuren, Hein
author_facet Koenen, Melissa F.
Balvert, Marleen
Fleuren, Hein
author_sort Koenen, Melissa F.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Linear programming (LP) is often used within diet optimization to find, from a set of available food commodities, the most affordable diet that meets the nutritional requirements of an individual or (sub)population. It is, however, not always possible to create a feasible diet, as certain nutritional requirements are difficult to meet. In that case, goal programming (GP) can be used to minimize deviations from the nutritional requirements in order to obtain a near feasible diet. With GP the cost of the diet is often overlooked or taken into account using the ε-constraint method. This method does not guarantee to find all possible trade-offs between costs and nutritional deficiency without solving many uninformative LPs. METHODS: We present a method to find all trade-offs between any two linear objectives in a dietary LP context that is simple, does not solve uninformative LPs and does not need prior input from the decision maker (DM). This method is a bi-objective algorithm based on the NonInferior Set Estimation (NISE) method that finds all efficient trade-offs between two linear objectives. RESULTS: In order to show what type of insights can be gained from this approach, two analyses are presented that investigate the relation between cost and nutritional adequacy. In the first analysis a diet with a restriction on the exact energy intake is considered where all nutrient intakes except energy are allowed to deviate from their prescription. This analysis is especially helpful in case of a restrictive budget or when a nutritionally adequate diet is either unaffordable or unattainable. The second analysis only relaxes the exact energy intake, where the other nutrients are kept within their requirements, to investigate how the energy intake affects the cost of a diet. Here, we describe in what situations the so-called more-for-less paradox takes place, which can be induced by requiring an exact energy intake. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to address how to obtain all efficient trade-offs of two linear objectives in a dietary LP context and how this can be used for analyses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9798409
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97984092022-12-30 Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy Koenen, Melissa F. Balvert, Marleen Fleuren, Hein Front Nutr Nutrition INTRODUCTION: Linear programming (LP) is often used within diet optimization to find, from a set of available food commodities, the most affordable diet that meets the nutritional requirements of an individual or (sub)population. It is, however, not always possible to create a feasible diet, as certain nutritional requirements are difficult to meet. In that case, goal programming (GP) can be used to minimize deviations from the nutritional requirements in order to obtain a near feasible diet. With GP the cost of the diet is often overlooked or taken into account using the ε-constraint method. This method does not guarantee to find all possible trade-offs between costs and nutritional deficiency without solving many uninformative LPs. METHODS: We present a method to find all trade-offs between any two linear objectives in a dietary LP context that is simple, does not solve uninformative LPs and does not need prior input from the decision maker (DM). This method is a bi-objective algorithm based on the NonInferior Set Estimation (NISE) method that finds all efficient trade-offs between two linear objectives. RESULTS: In order to show what type of insights can be gained from this approach, two analyses are presented that investigate the relation between cost and nutritional adequacy. In the first analysis a diet with a restriction on the exact energy intake is considered where all nutrient intakes except energy are allowed to deviate from their prescription. This analysis is especially helpful in case of a restrictive budget or when a nutritionally adequate diet is either unaffordable or unattainable. The second analysis only relaxes the exact energy intake, where the other nutrients are kept within their requirements, to investigate how the energy intake affects the cost of a diet. Here, we describe in what situations the so-called more-for-less paradox takes place, which can be induced by requiring an exact energy intake. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to address how to obtain all efficient trade-offs of two linear objectives in a dietary LP context and how this can be used for analyses. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9798409/ /pubmed/36590216 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1056205 Text en Copyright © 2022 Koenen, Balvert and Fleuren. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Nutrition
Koenen, Melissa F.
Balvert, Marleen
Fleuren, Hein
Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title_full Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title_fullStr Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title_full_unstemmed Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title_short Bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
title_sort bi-objective goal programming for balancing costs vs. nutritional adequacy
topic Nutrition
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9798409/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36590216
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1056205
work_keys_str_mv AT koenenmelissaf biobjectivegoalprogrammingforbalancingcostsvsnutritionaladequacy
AT balvertmarleen biobjectivegoalprogrammingforbalancingcostsvsnutritionaladequacy
AT fleurenhein biobjectivegoalprogrammingforbalancingcostsvsnutritionaladequacy