Comparison of the Accuracy, Completeness, Reproducibility, and Consistency of Different AI Chatbots in Providing Nutritional Advice: An Exploratory Study

<b>Background</b>: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for obtaining healthcare advice is greatly increased in the general population. This study assessed the performance of general-purpose AI chatbots in giving nutritional advice for patients with obesity with or without multiple comorbidities. <b>Methods</b>: The case of a 35-year-old male with obesity without comorbidities (Case 1), and the case of a 65-year-old female with obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, sarcopenia, and chronic kidney disease (Case 2) were submitted to 10 different AI chatbots on three consecutive days. Accuracy (the ability to provide advice aligned with guidelines), completeness, and reproducibility (replicability of the information over the three days) of the chatbots' responses were evaluated by three registered dietitians. Nutritional consistency was evaluated by comparing the nutrient content provided by the chatbots with values calculated by dietitians. <b>Results</b>: Case 1: ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated the highest accuracy rate (67.2%) and Copilot the lowest (21.1%). ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest completeness (both 87.3%), whereas Gemini and Copilot recorded the lowest scores (55.6%, 42.9%, respectively). Reproducibility was highest for Chatsonic (86.1%) and lowest for ChatGPT 4.0 (50%) and ChatGPT 3.5 (52.8%). Case 2: Overall accuracy was low, with no chatbot achieving 50% accuracy. Completeness was highest for ChatGPT 4.0 and Claude (both 77.8%), and lowest for Copilot (23.3%). ChatGPT 4.0 and Pi Ai showed the lowest reproducibility. Major inconsistencies regarded the amount of protein recommended by most chatbots, which suggested simultaneously to both reduce and increase protein intake. <b>Conclusions:</b> General-purpose AI chatbots exhibited limited accuracy, reproducibility, and consistency in giving dietary advice in complex clinical scenarios and cannot replace the work of an expert dietitian.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2024-12-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13247810
Citations
29
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.49
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of the Accuracy, Completeness, Reproducibility, and Consistency of Different AI Chatbots in Providing Nutritional Advice: An Exploratory Study

Andrea Devecchi, Marco Vecchi, Domenico Sergi, Ilaria Goitre et al.
29 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.49
article

Comparison of the Accuracy, Completeness, Reproducibility, and Consistency of Different AI Chatbots in Providing Nutritional Advice: An Exploratory Study

Andrea Devecchi, Marco Vecchi, Domenico Sergi, Ilaria Goitre, Maria Carmine Scigliano, Simona Bo, Fabio Dario Merlo, Valentina Ponzo, Enrica Favaro, Rosalba Rosato, Martina Onida, Simona Cossai
article en
29 citations

Abstract

<b>Background</b>: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots for obtaining healthcare advice is greatly increased in the general population. This study assessed the performance of general-purpose AI chatbots in giving nutritional advice for patients with obesity with or without multiple comorbidities. <b>Methods</b>: The case of a 35-year-old male with obesity without comorbidities (Case 1), and the case of a 65-year-old female with obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, sarcopenia, and chronic kidney disease (Case 2) were submitted to 10 different AI chatbots on three consecutive days. Accuracy (the ability to provide advice aligned with guidelines), completeness, and reproducibility (replicability of the information over the three days) of the chatbots' responses were evaluated by three registered dietitians. Nutritional consistency was evaluated by comparing the nutrient content provided by the chatbots with values calculated by dietitians. <b>Results</b>: Case 1: ChatGPT 3.5 demonstrated the highest accuracy rate (67.2%) and Copilot the lowest (21.1%). ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4.0 achieved the highest completeness (both 87.3%), whereas Gemini and Copilot recorded the lowest scores (55.6%, 42.9%, respectively). Reproducibility was highest for Chatsonic (86.1%) and lowest for ChatGPT 4.0 (50%) and ChatGPT 3.5 (52.8%). Case 2: Overall accuracy was low, with no chatbot achieving 50% accuracy. Completeness was highest for ChatGPT 4.0 and Claude (both 77.8%), and lowest for Copilot (23.3%). ChatGPT 4.0 and Pi Ai showed the lowest reproducibility. Major inconsistencies regarded the amount of protein recommended by most chatbots, which suggested simultaneously to both reduce and increase protein intake. <b>Conclusions:</b> General-purpose AI chatbots exhibited limited accuracy, reproducibility, and consistency in giving dietary advice in complex clinical scenarios and cannot replace the work of an expert dietitian.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 13(24)
University of Ferrara (IT), University of Gastronomic Sciences (IT), Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino (IT), University of Turin (IT)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
3.49
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.