ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability, and readability of large language model chatbot responses to public-facing vegetarian and vegan nutrition advice questions: a cross-sectional comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
Background: Publicly accessible large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to seek nutrition advice. Although vegetarian and vegan nutrition advice is often perceived as low risk, it may involve supplementation, vulnerable life stages, chronic disease, and symptoms that require clinical assessment. Objective: To compare the safety, accuracy, empathy, reliability, information quality, and readability of five publicly accessible LLM chatbot products in responding to public-facing vegetarian and vegan nutrition advice questions. Methods: In this cross-sectional comparative study, 58 predefined public-facing vegetarian and vegan nutrition advice questions were submitted once in English to ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, DeepSeek, and Doubao through their official web interfaces. The final dataset included 290 chatbot responses. Five blinded raters with clinical nutrition training evaluated safety, accuracy, and empathy using predefined reference-answer anchors, and assessed reliability and information quality using four established instruments: the DISCERN instrument, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Score (GQS). Readability was assessed using six formula-based indices: the Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman-Liau Index (CL), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Model comparisons were paired by question. Results: Inter-rater agreement was high for all human-rated outcomes. Potentially harmful responses occurred in all models, although adjusted pairwise safety comparisons were not statistically significant. Recurring harm patterns involved vitamin B12 source reliability, uncontrolled iodine or selenium intake, vulnerable life stages, chronic disease, symptom triage, and poorly traceable or overconfident statements. Accuracy, empathy, reliability, information quality, and readability differed significantly across models. ChatGPT, Copilot, and DeepSeek showed higher accuracy; ChatGPT showed higher empathy; Copilot performed best on DISCERN and EQIP; and Gemini produced the most readable responses. Conclusion: Publicly accessible LLM chatbots can provide useful general information on vegetarian and vegan nutrition, but their performance is uneven and safety limitations remain. Chatbot-generated advice should be interpreted cautiously, especially for supplementation, vulnerable groups, chronic disease, and symptoms requiring clinical assessment. Future systems should improve safety guidance, referral cues, source traceability, and plain-language communication.
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.