Assessing online chat-based artificial intelligence models for weight loss recommendation appropriateness and bias in the presence of guideline incongruence.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM International Journal of Obesity Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1038/s41366-025-01717-5
Eugene Annor, Joseph Atarere, Nneoma Ubah, Oladoyin Jolaoye, Bryce Kunkle, Olachi Egbo, Daniel K Martin
{"title":"Assessing online chat-based artificial intelligence models for weight loss recommendation appropriateness and bias in the presence of guideline incongruence.","authors":"Eugene Annor, Joseph Atarere, Nneoma Ubah, Oladoyin Jolaoye, Bryce Kunkle, Olachi Egbo, Daniel K Martin","doi":"10.1038/s41366-025-01717-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Managing obesity requires a comprehensive approach that involves therapeutic lifestyle changes, medications, or metabolic surgery. Many patients seek health information from online sources and artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot before consulting health professionals. This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of the responses of Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot to questions on pharmacologic and surgical management of obesity and assess for bias in their responses to either the ADA or AACE guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten questions were compiled into a set and posed separately to the free editions of Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. Recommendations for the questions were extracted from the ADA and the AACE websites, and the responses were graded by reviewers for appropriateness, completeness, and bias to any of the guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All responses from Microsoft Copilot and 8/10 (80%) responses from Google Gemini were appropriate. There were no inappropriate responses. Google Gemini refused to respond to two questions and insisted on consulting a physician. Microsoft Copilot (10/10; 100%) provided a higher proportion of complete responses than Google Gemini (5/10; 50%). Of the eight responses from Google Gemini, none were biased towards any of the guidelines, while two of the responses from Microsoft Copilot were biased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study highlights the role of Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in weight loss management. The differences in their responses may be attributed to the variation in the quality and scope of their training data and design.</p>","PeriodicalId":14183,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Obesity","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Obesity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-025-01717-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim: Managing obesity requires a comprehensive approach that involves therapeutic lifestyle changes, medications, or metabolic surgery. Many patients seek health information from online sources and artificial intelligence models like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot before consulting health professionals. This study aims to evaluate the appropriateness of the responses of Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot to questions on pharmacologic and surgical management of obesity and assess for bias in their responses to either the ADA or AACE guidelines.

Methods: Ten questions were compiled into a set and posed separately to the free editions of Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot. Recommendations for the questions were extracted from the ADA and the AACE websites, and the responses were graded by reviewers for appropriateness, completeness, and bias to any of the guidelines.

Results: All responses from Microsoft Copilot and 8/10 (80%) responses from Google Gemini were appropriate. There were no inappropriate responses. Google Gemini refused to respond to two questions and insisted on consulting a physician. Microsoft Copilot (10/10; 100%) provided a higher proportion of complete responses than Google Gemini (5/10; 50%). Of the eight responses from Google Gemini, none were biased towards any of the guidelines, while two of the responses from Microsoft Copilot were biased.

Conclusion: The study highlights the role of Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini in weight loss management. The differences in their responses may be attributed to the variation in the quality and scope of their training data and design.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Obesity
International Journal of Obesity 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Obesity is a multi-disciplinary forum for research describing basic, clinical and applied studies in biochemistry, physiology, genetics and nutrition, molecular, metabolic, psychological and epidemiological aspects of obesity and related disorders. We publish a range of content types including original research articles, technical reports, reviews, correspondence and brief communications that elaborate on significant advances in the field and cover topical issues.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the link between dietary inflammatory index, inflammatory biomarkers, and sleep quality in adults with obesity: a pilot investigation. Pediatric obesity and the risk of multiple sclerosis: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Intramyocellular lipid use is altered with exercise in males with childhood-onset obesity despite no differences in substrate oxidation. Editorial on obesity: a 100-year journey-the past, present and future. Association of BCHE gene SNP rs1803274 (K-variant) and rs3495 with obesity in Pakistani population group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1