ArticleJAMIA open2026
Use of chat GPT for sentiment and readability analysis of nutrition articles in legacy media.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to measure sentiment and reading level, facilitating its use to improve nutrition communication, though AI has not yet been tested for such analysis of nutrition articles. The present study investigated this by looking at reading level and sentiment in magazines aimed at various demographics as determined with ChatGPT. Materials and methods: Sentiment analysis was conducted on a sample of articles about nutrition from legacy media collected over 1 year. Reading level of the articles was determined using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formula. Nutrition content sub-themes were examined for reading level and sentiment. Results: Average sentiment ratings remained close to neutral (mean = 0.26 ± 2.05), with no consistent changes over time. Articles written at higher reading levels showed more positive sentiment values than those at lower reading levels. Of the twelve nutrition sub-themes were identified, the most prevalent were food/diet recommendations for health (23.8%), articles about celebrity diets (15.6%), cooking and culinary articles (14.1%), and food insecurity (10.7%). Comparison of sub-samples of sentiment ratings or Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores done by a human coder versus ChatGPT were not different ( Discussion: Reading levels are relatively high overall. These varied by source periodical and theme as would be expected with editors targeting varied readership groups. Analysis by nutrition themes showed differences in sentiment that were concurrent with the type of content analyzed. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that AI such as ChatGPT can be utilized as a for assessment of sentiment and reading levels in nutrition articles.
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.