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
Tracking weight status and cardiometabolic indices from preadolescence to adulthood: The healthy growth follow-up study design and preliminary results. Vitamin D and rheumatoid arthritis in European populations: Unraveling causal links and the mediating role of sex hormones via Mendelian randomization. Creatine supplementation in type 2 diabetes: A critical appraisal of the evidence gap. Association between sodium intake, spot urine sodium concentration and obesity in Finnish adults: A population-based study. When more isn't more: Diners' feelings of fullness after consuming restaurant portions with fewer than 700 calories.
×
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