ArticleNutrients2024
Assessing the Quality of ChatGPT's Dietary Advice for College Students from Dietitians' Perspectives.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Domain-Dependent Performance of Human Experts and AI Systems in Pediatric Menu Evaluation.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- Article
- The effect of education provided to university students on sustainable nutrition: a comparison of ChatGPT and individual nutrition education.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Validity and reliability of ChatGPT's responses on dietary supplements in Japan: A quality assessment and content analysis.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Using Large Language Models to Generate Dietary Feedback Similar to Human Experts in Weight Management: Experiments on Real-World Scenario Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in personalized nutrition interventions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability, and readability of large language model chatbot responses to public-facing vegetarian and vegan nutrition advice questions: a cross-sectional comparative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence diet plans underestimate nutrient intake compared to dietitians in adolescents.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Support Dietetic Practice Across Primary Care: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation Enhancement for Delivering Guideline-Adherent Nutrition Information for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy, Completeness and Safety of ChatGPT-4o Responses on Pressure Injuries in Infants: Clinical Applications and Future Implications.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Diet Quality and Caloric Accuracy in AI-Generated Diet Plans: A Comparative Study Across Chatbots.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Large language models in clinical nutrition: an overview of its applications, capabilities, limitations, and potential future prospects.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- Evolving Trends in College Students' Health Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- ChatGPT and human dietitian responses to diet-related questions on an online Q&A platform: A comparative study.Digital healthArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs ChatGPT becomes a primary information source for college students, its performance in providing dietary advice is under scrutiny. This study assessed ChatGPT's performance in providing nutritional guidance to college students.
methodsChatGPT's performance on dietary advice was evaluated by 30 experienced dietitians and assessed using an objective nutrition literacy (NL) test. The dietitians were recruited to assess the quality of ChatGPT's dietary advice, including its NL achievement and response quality.
resultsThe results indicate that ChatGPT's performance varies across scenarios and is suboptimal for achieving NL with full achievement rates from 7.50% to 37.56%. While the responses excelled in readability, they lacked understandability, practicality, and completeness. In the NL test, ChatGPT showed an 84.38% accuracy rate, surpassing the NL level of Taiwanese college students. The top concern among the dietitians, cited 52 times in 242 feedback entries, was that the "response information lacks thoroughness or rigor, leading to misunderstandings or misuse". Despite the potential of ChatGPT as a supplementary educational tool, significant gaps must be addressed, especially in detailed dietary inquiries.
conclusionThis study highlights the need for improved AI educational approaches and suggests the potential for developing ChatGPT teaching guides or usage instructions to train college students and support dietitians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.