ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Evaluating Large Language Models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation Enhancement for Delivering Guideline-Adherent Nutrition Information for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large Language Model Chatbot Responses to Cancer Survivorship Questions in Hong Kong: Bilingual Evaluation and Prompt Optimization Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Methods in Health Research: Rapid Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Evaluation Methods for Inference-Time Retrieval-Augmented and Graph Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model Counseling for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes: Source-Masked Multirater Comparative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Application of AI in Hypertension Health Education: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Applying Artificial Intelligence and machine learning in precision nutrition.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Assessing the accuracy and educational value of ChatGPT-generated content for core topics in cardiology: a descriptive analysis at Selçuk University Cardiology Clinic.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Digital twin-supported behavioral intention in mothers of young children to prevent childhood obesity: a large language model-based intervention study.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- An explainable graph retrieval augmented generation framework for personalized nutrition recommendation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Large Language Models for Real-World Nutrition Assessment: Structured Prompts, Multi-Model Validation and Expert Oversight.Nutrients · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide, yet many web-based sources on cardiovascular (CV) health are inaccessible. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related inquiries and offer an opportunity to produce accessible and scalable CV health information. However, because these models are trained on heterogeneous data, including unverified user-generated content, the quality and reliability of food and nutrition information on CVD prevention remain uncertain. Recent studies have examined LLM use in various health care applications, but their effectiveness for providing nutrition information remains understudied. Although retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks have been shown to enhance LLM consistency and accuracy, their use in delivering nutrition information for CVD prevention requires further evaluation.
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of off-the-shelf and RAG-enhanced LLMs in delivering guideline-adherent nutrition information for CVD prevention, we assessed 3 off-the-shelf models (ChatGPT-4o, Perplexity, and Llama 3-70B) and a Llama 3-70B+RAG model.
methodsWe curated 30 nutrition questions that comprehensively addressed CVD prevention. These were approved by a registered dietitian providing preventive cardiology services at an academic medical center and were posed 3 times to each model. We developed a 15,074-word knowledge bank incorporating the American Heart Association's 2021 dietary guidelines and related website content to enhance Meta's Llama 3-70B model using RAG. The model received this and a few-shot prompt as context, included citations in a Context Source section, and used vector similarity to align responses with guideline content, with the temperature parameter set to 0.5 to enhance consistency. Model responses were evaluated by 3 expert reviewers against benchmark CV guidelines for appropriateness, reliability, readability, harm, and guideline adherence. Mean scores were compared using ANOVA, with statistical significance set at P<.05. Interrater agreement was measured using the Cohen κ coefficient, and readability was estimated using the Flesch-Kincaid readability score.
resultsThe Llama 3+RAG model scored higher than the Perplexity, GPT-4o, and Llama 3 models on reliability, appropriateness, guideline adherence, and readability and showed no harm. The Cohen κ coefficient (κ>70%; P<.001) indicated high reviewer agreement.
conclusionsThe Llama 3+RAG model outperformed the off-the-shelf models across all measures with no evidence of harm, although the responses were less readable due to technical language. The off-the-shelf models scored lower on all measures and produced some harmful responses. These findings highlight the limitations of off-the-shelf models and demonstrate that RAG system integration can enhance LLM performance in delivering evidence-based dietary information.
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.