ArticleNutrition research and practice2025
Comparison of chatbot and paper-based FFQs in participants who underwent colorectal or gastric cancer screening.
Article in Nutrition research and practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) is a commonly used tool for assessing the usual diet of groups and individuals. This study developed a chatbot-based mobile FFQ, embedded within KakaoTalk, Korea's most popular mobile instant messenger. This study compared the energy and nutrient intake reported by participants using a chatbot versus a paper-based FFQ. SUBJECTS/
methodsThis study included 95 participants (50 men and 45 women, aged 24-79 yrs) who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy for cancer screening at Dongguk University Ilsan Hospital between April and August 2022. The participants completed both the chatbot and paper-based FFQs within a 3-mon period. The comparability of the chatbot-based FFQ with traditional paper-based FFQ was examined by comparing the log-transformed intakes of energy and nutrients using Pearson correlation coefficients. The Cohen's Kappa coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and cross-classification percent agreement were used to evaluate the compatibility.
resultsThe Pearson correlation coefficients of energy and energy-adjusted nutrients ranged from 0.74 (niacin) to 0.90 (vitamin A), with a median coefficient of 0.85. The Cohen kappa coefficients varied from 0.42 (niacin) to 0.64 (n-6 fatty acid). The Bland-Altman plots suggested that most of the data points fell between the lower and upper limits of agreement, and 88% to 98% of the participants were classified into the same or adjacent quartiles for energy-adjusted nutrients.
conclusionThese findings indicate good comparability between chatbot- and paper-based FFQs. A chatbot-based mobile FFQ can provide comparable dietary intake rankings, making it a viable tool for evaluating the associations between diet and various disease risks in longitudinal studies.
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.