ArticleEndocrine journal2025
Performance of GPT-4o combined with retrieval-augmented generation on nutritionist licensing exam questions.
Article in Endocrine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
GPT-4o, a general-purpose large language model, has a Retrieval-Augmented Variant (GPT-4o-RAG) that can assist in dietary counseling. However, research on its application in this field remains lacking. To bridge this gap, we used the Japanese National Examination for Registered Dietitians as a standardized benchmark for evaluation. Three language models-GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4o-RAG-were assessed using 599 publicly available multiple-choice questions from the 2022-2024 national examinations. For each model, we generated answers to each question five times and based our evaluation on these multiple outputs to assess response variability and robustness. A custom pipeline was implemented for GPT-4o-RAG to retrieve guideline-based documents for integration with GPT-generated responses. Accuracy rates, variance, and response consistency were evaluated. Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency analysis was conducted to compare word characteristics in correctly and incorrectly answered questions. All three models achieved accuracy rates >60%, the passing threshold. GPT-4o-RAG demonstrated the highest accuracy (83.5% ± 0.3%), followed by GPT-4o (82.1% ± 1.0%), and GPT-4o-mini (70.0% ± 1.4%). While the accuracy improvement of GPT-4o-RAG over GPT-4o was not statistically significant (p = 0.12), it exhibited significantly lower variance and higher response consistency (97.3% vs. 91.2-95.2%, p < 0.001). GPT-4o-RAG outperformed other models in applied and clinical nutrition categories but showed limited performance on numerical questions. Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency analysis suggested that incorrect answers were more frequently associated with numerical terms. GPT-4o-RAG improved response consistency and domain-specific performance, suggesting utility in clinical nutrition. However, limitations in numerical reasoning and individualized guidance warrant further development and validation.
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.