ArticleScientifica2025
Exploring the Potential of an AI Chatbot as a Supplementary Tool for Nutritional Prescription Hospital Discharge: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Scientifica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI-based chatbots are increasingly used to automate clinical documentation, but their efficacy in generating specialized nutritional prescriptions for hospital discharge remains underexplored. This preliminary study evaluated the performance of a prominent AI chatbot in producing clinically valid nutritional guidelines. A specialist committee of registered dietitians selected 16 common medical and surgical pathologies. Standardized prompts were used to generate nutritional discharge guidelines from the chatbot. The same committee then evaluated the AI-generated texts for technical accuracy and content presentation on a 0-10 scale (approval score ≥ 7.0). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's Kappa. Overall, 50% (8/16) of the AI-generated prescriptions met the predefined approval threshold. Performance was higher for medical pathologies (mean score: 7.1 ± 1.2) compared to surgical pathologies (6.6 ± 1.4), although this difference was not statistically significant (
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.