Can artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot tools be used effectively for nutritional management in obesity?

IF 1.4 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition and health Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1177/02601060251329070
Hatice Merve Bayram, Zehra Margot Çelik, Hatice Kübra Barcın Güzeldere
{"title":"Can artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot tools be used effectively for nutritional management in obesity?","authors":"Hatice Merve Bayram, Zehra Margot Çelik, Hatice Kübra Barcın Güzeldere","doi":"10.1177/02601060251329070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), particularly Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has been suggested as a tool for dietary planning in different diseases.AimThe study aimed to compare the energy, macro and micronutrients of the sample menu components presented by ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 for obesity with the Turkish Dietary Guidelines (TDG)-2022, evaluating their accuracy and clarity in medical nutrition management. Due to higher accuracy levels and the most preferred AI, ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 were selected for comparison.MethodsA comparative content analysis was conducted using ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-4 to generate 1800 kcal daily diet plans for a 20-year-old female with obesity. AI models provided recommendations for dietary management, the nutrition care process, and menu planning. Three dietitians evaluated the outputs. Data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0.ResultsChatGPT-generated menus were inconsistent with dietary recommendations. Both ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 offered 5-day menu samples with low calorie content of \"1800 kcal prompt\" compared to the TDG-2022 (<i>P</i> < 0.001 for ChatGPT-4o). Additionally, key nutrients, particularly fats (<i>P</i> = 0.003), carbohydrates (%), potassium, and calcium (<i>P</i> < 0.05 for all) were inadequately compared to the TDG-2022. Nutrient analysis revealed that both models underperformed in meeting recommended intakes for critical micronutrients such as calcium, and had an unbalanced distribution of macronutrients.ConclusionChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 have limitations when used to provide accurate dietary management. While AI chatbots offer useful insights, they cannot replace expertise of dietitians in clinical planning; as a result, caution is advised when using these tools in this context.</p>","PeriodicalId":19352,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition and health","volume":" ","pages":"1825-1834"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02601060251329070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI), particularly Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), has been suggested as a tool for dietary planning in different diseases.AimThe study aimed to compare the energy, macro and micronutrients of the sample menu components presented by ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 for obesity with the Turkish Dietary Guidelines (TDG)-2022, evaluating their accuracy and clarity in medical nutrition management. Due to higher accuracy levels and the most preferred AI, ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 were selected for comparison.MethodsA comparative content analysis was conducted using ChatGPT-4o, and ChatGPT-4 to generate 1800 kcal daily diet plans for a 20-year-old female with obesity. AI models provided recommendations for dietary management, the nutrition care process, and menu planning. Three dietitians evaluated the outputs. Data were analyzed using SPSS 24.0.ResultsChatGPT-generated menus were inconsistent with dietary recommendations. Both ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 offered 5-day menu samples with low calorie content of "1800 kcal prompt" compared to the TDG-2022 (P < 0.001 for ChatGPT-4o). Additionally, key nutrients, particularly fats (P = 0.003), carbohydrates (%), potassium, and calcium (P < 0.05 for all) were inadequately compared to the TDG-2022. Nutrient analysis revealed that both models underperformed in meeting recommended intakes for critical micronutrients such as calcium, and had an unbalanced distribution of macronutrients.ConclusionChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-4 have limitations when used to provide accurate dietary management. While AI chatbots offer useful insights, they cannot replace expertise of dietitians in clinical planning; as a result, caution is advised when using these tools in this context.

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
人工智能(AI)聊天机器人工具能否有效地用于肥胖患者的营养管理?
人工智能(AI),特别是聊天生成预训练转换器(ChatGPT),已被建议作为不同疾病饮食计划的工具。目的将chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-4提供的肥胖样本菜单成分的能量、宏量和微量营养素与土耳其膳食指南(TDG)-2022进行比较,评估其在医疗营养管理中的准确性和清晰度。由于更高的准确率水平和最受欢迎的AI,我们选择chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-4进行比较。方法采用chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-4进行对比含量分析,生成1例20岁肥胖女性1800 kcal的日饮食计划。人工智能模型为饮食管理、营养护理过程和菜单规划提供建议。三位营养师对产出进行了评估。数据采用SPSS 24.0进行分析。结果gpt生成的菜单与膳食建议不一致。chatgpt - 40和ChatGPT-4都提供了5天的菜单样本,与TDG-2022 (P = 0.003)相比,“1800千卡提示”的卡路里含量较低,碳水化合物(%),钾和钙(P = 0.003)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition and health
Nutrition and health Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
160
期刊最新文献
The experiences and perceptions of males using testosterone booster supplements - An exploratory cross-sectional survey. Diet quality and functional nutritional assessment in children and adolescents with cancer. Acute hemodynamic and autonomic modulation following beetroot and grapefruit juice consumption, alone and in combination, in adults with hypertension: A randomized crossover pilot study. Water is K'é: A multi-level intervention to promote healthy beverage choices among Navajo families: Trial rationale and study protocol. Ultra-processed food intake and Mediterranean diet adherence in relation to fertility status in U.S. women: Findings from NHANES 2013-2018.
×
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:604180095
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