ArticleNutrients2026
When the Algorithm Becomes the Dietitian: Large Language Model Hallucinations, Algorithmic Food Environments, and the Erosion of Nutritional Autonomy.
Article in Nutrients, 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
Large language models (LLMs) can answer dietary questions, but their use as substitutes for registered dietitians remains insufficiently quantified. Evaluations have identified inaccurate nutrient targets, incomplete clinical advice, and insufficient personalization, alongside useful performance on some general nutrition tasks. Social media and food-delivery interfaces may also influence dietary choices through food cues, social endorsement, and choice architecture. This conceptual perspective presents ADRIFT (Algorithmic Dietary Reconfiguration through Informational, Framing, and Technological mechanisms) to examine how these influences might interact. Drawing on a targeted, nonsystematic synthesis of nutrition, behavioral, neuroscience, and AI literature, ADRIFT distinguishes three axes: informational errors and unsupported advice; framing through content and interface design; and adaptive personalization and cognitive delegation. Direct evidence supports selected component mechanisms, but their convergence into a feedback loop that reduces nutritional autonomy remains hypothetical. We propose a six-category taxonomy covering hallucinations and related nutrition errors, define nutritional autonomy erosion as declining capacity for informed, self-directed dietary decisions, and outline eight testable hypotheses. The framework concerns unsupervised use and does not predict that language models will replace dietetic professionals. Longitudinal validation, platform experiments, and clinical safety evaluations are needed to determine whether, for whom, and under which conditions the proposed harms occur.
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.