Large Language Models as Clinical Nutrition Decision Tools: Quantitative Bias and Guideline Deviation in Type 2 Diabetes Meal Planning

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision support tools in clinical nutrition, including meal planning for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the clinical safety, quantitative accuracy, and guideline adherence of AI-generated dietary plans remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate systematic bias and agreement between LLM-generated diets and a guideline-concordant reference diet, and to assess whether current LLMs can function as reliable clinical nutrition decision support tools in T2DM. <b>Methods:</b> Six widely used LLMs generated standardized three-day, 1800 kcal dietary plans for T2DM using an identical prompt. Each day was treated as an independent observation (<i>n</i> = 18). Energy and macronutrient contents were analyzed using professional nutrition software and compared with a dietitian-designed reference diet based on ADA, EASD, IDF, and national guidelines. Agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, proportional bias assessment, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Guideline adherence and clinical appropriateness were independently scored by registered dietitians. <b>Results:</b> Most LLM-generated diets systematically deviated from the reference diet, with lower total energy, reduced carbohydrate and fiber content, and variable protein distribution. Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated significant bias and wide limits of agreement for key nutrients, indicating clinically meaningful discrepancies. Guideline adherence scores varied substantially across models, with only one model showing relatively consistent performance. Inter-rater reliability between dietitians was high (ICC = 0.806). <b>Conclusions:</b> Current LLMs exhibit systematic quantitative bias and inconsistent guideline adherence when used for T2DM meal planning. AI-generated dietary plans are not interchangeable with dietitian-guided medical nutrition therapy and may pose clinical risks if used without professional oversight. Careful validation, domain-specific fine-tuning, and integration within supervised clinical workflows are required before implementation in diabetes care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Healthcare
Published
2026-03-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare14060739
Primary Topic
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Large Language Models as Clinical Nutrition Decision Tools: Quantitative Bias and Guideline Deviation in Type 2 Diabetes Meal Planning

AYŞE BETÜL BİLEN, Müveddet Emel Alphan, Aysenur Calik, Kardelen Kandemir et al.
Healthcare
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
article

Large Language Models as Clinical Nutrition Decision Tools: Quantitative Bias and Guideline Deviation in Type 2 Diabetes Meal Planning

AYŞE BETÜL BİLEN, Müveddet Emel Alphan, Aysenur Calik, Kardelen Kandemir, Pinar Ece Karakas
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision support tools in clinical nutrition, including meal planning for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the clinical safety, quantitative accuracy, and guideline adherence of AI-generated dietary plans remain uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate systematic bias and agreement between LLM-generated diets and a guideline-concordant reference diet, and to assess whether current LLMs can function as reliable clinical nutrition decision support tools in T2DM. <b>Methods:</b> Six widely used LLMs generated standardized three-day, 1800 kcal dietary plans for T2DM using an identical prompt. Each day was treated as an independent observation (<i>n</i> = 18). Energy and macronutrient contents were analyzed using professional nutrition software and compared with a dietitian-designed reference diet based on ADA, EASD, IDF, and national guidelines. Agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis, proportional bias assessment, and intraclass correlation coefficients. Guideline adherence and clinical appropriateness were independently scored by registered dietitians. <b>Results:</b> Most LLM-generated diets systematically deviated from the reference diet, with lower total energy, reduced carbohydrate and fiber content, and variable protein distribution. Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated significant bias and wide limits of agreement for key nutrients, indicating clinically meaningful discrepancies. Guideline adherence scores varied substantially across models, with only one model showing relatively consistent performance. Inter-rater reliability between dietitians was high (ICC = 0.806). <b>Conclusions:</b> Current LLMs exhibit systematic quantitative bias and inconsistent guideline adherence when used for T2DM meal planning. AI-generated dietary plans are not interchangeable with dietitian-guided medical nutrition therapy and may pose clinical risks if used without professional oversight. Careful validation, domain-specific fine-tuning, and integration within supervised clinical workflows are required before implementation in diabetes care.

HealthcareVol. 14(6)
Haliç University (TR), Istanbul Technical University (TR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
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.