ArticleThe International journal of eating disorders2026
Benchmarking Generative Artificial Intelligence Against Human Judgment in Eating Disorder Case Recognition and Treatment Recommendations.
Article in The International journal of eating disorders, 2026. 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.
- Benchmarking Generative Artificial Intelligence Against Human Judgment in Eating Disorder Case Recognition and Treatment Recommendations.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGenerative AI is now used to access eating disorder (ED) information, yet the suitability of its outputs remains unclear. Using two vignettes, we evaluated generative AI's ability to accurately identify ED presentations and recommend appropriate care, while benchmarking its performance against published responses from human samples.
methodChatGPT-5.4 was presented with two vignettes and prompted with questions related to problem identification and treatment recommendation. Vignette one depicted a restrictive ED consistent with anorexia nervosa or atypical anorexia nervosa, with body weight varying across low-, average-, and higher-weight conditions. Vignette two depicted a person with binge-eating disorder (BED). Responses across 20 prompt administrations per vignette were compared against benchmark data from clinicians for vignette one and community participants for vignette two.
resultsFor vignette one, ChatGPT identified an ED or possible ED in 100% of responses for the low- and average-weight conditions and 90% for the higher-weight condition, compared with 47%, 21%, and 16% among human clinicians, respectively. It recommended specialized ED treatment 100% of the time across all three weight conditions, compared with 35%, 19%, and 17% of clinicians, respectively. For vignette two, ChatGPT correctly identified BED as the problem in 100% of prompt repetitions (vs. 59% in community participants) and more consistently endorsed evidence-based treatments than community participants (100% vs. 50%). Supplementary analyses confirmed similar results when prompting Gemini-3 and Claude-4.5.
conclusionGenerative AI can accurately identify ED presentations and recommend suitable care in structured scenarios, while showing little evidence of common biases observed in human samples.
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.