ChatGPT-4o and 4o1 Preview as Dietary Support Tools in a Real-World Medicated Obesity Program: A Prospective Comparative Analysis
Rattachement africain : au, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Clinicians are becoming increasingly interested in the use of large language models (LLMs) in obesity services. While most experts agree that LLM integration would increase access to obesity care and its efficiency, many remain skeptical of their scientific accuracy and capacity to convey human empathy. Recent studies have shown that ChatGPT-3 models are capable of emulating human dietitian responses to a range of basic dietary questions. METHODS: This study compared responses of two ChatGPT-4o models to those from human dietitians across 10 complex questions (5 broad; 5 narrow) derived from patient-clinician interactions within a real-world medicated digital weight loss service. RESULTS: < 0.05) by human dietitians on any of the study's 10 questions. The same finding was made when scores were aggregated from the ten questions across the following four individual study criteria: scientific correctness, comprehensibility, empathy/relatability, and actionability. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence that advanced LLMs may be able to play a significant supporting role in medicated obesity services. Research in other obesity contexts is needed before any stronger conclusions are made about LLM lifestyle coaching and whether such initiatives increase care access.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- ChatGPT-4o and 4o1 Preview as Dietary Support Tools in a Real-World Medicated Obesity Program: A Prospective Comparative Analysis
- Date Crossref
- 16/03/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.