ArticleJournal of translational medicine2025
Feeding intelligence: comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and clinical guidelines for nutritional management in head and neck cancer.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Nutritional Care in Oncology: Opportunities to Enhance Quality of Life and Support Patient-Centered Care.Cancers · 2026Review
- New perspectives from evidence to action - patient-centered evidence transformation in evidence-based nursing: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly applied in digital health and patient education, yet their alignment with established clinical guidelines for cancer-related nutritional management remains unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the concordance, functional characteristics, patient accessibility, and innovation of ChatGPT-generated nutritional recommendations compared with clinical guidelines from the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Chinese Nutrition Society (CNS), and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN).
methodsWe analyzed ChatGPT responses across six key nutrition-related issues—anorexia/cachexia, dysphagia, oral mucositis, unintentional weight loss, gastrointestinal intolerance, and nutritional monitoring—and compared them with guideline recommendations. Expert evaluation (n = 5), readability metrics, semantic similarity (TF-IDF), and patient-centered assessments were conducted to compare personalization, innovation, clinical feasibility, evidence-based support, population applicability, clarity, and self-management guidance.
resultsChatGPT recommendations aligned with at least one guideline in 50.0–64.3% of cases, highest for dysphagia (64.3%), and included general strategies such as small frequent meals, texture modification, hydration, and high-protein/high-calorie intake. ChatGPT-specific suggestions (8.3–18.2%) focused on lifestyle and behavioral interventions, including mindful eating, music therapy, and wearable diet trackers. Expert ratings indicated higher personalization (4.3/5) and innovation (4.6/5) for ChatGPT, whereas guidelines scored higher for clinical feasibility (4.7/5), evidence-based support (4.9/5), and population applicability (4.8/5). Between-group differences were statistically significant for clinical feasibility, evidence-based support, and applicability (all p < 0.01; 95% CI for mean differences: 0.62–1.12), whereas personalization showed no significant difference (p = 0.063). ChatGPT exhibited superior patient-centered performance in clarity (4.5 vs. 3.2, p = 0.004, 95% CI: 0.47–2.13) and self-management guidance (4.6 vs. 3.0, p = 0.002, 95% CI: 0.65–2.05) and demonstrated more concise, readable content (Flesch–Kincaid grade 12.9–14.2) compared with guidelines (17.9–20.5). Semantic analysis revealed moderate overlap with CSCO (≈ 0.63) and CNS (≈ 0.59), and lower similarity with ESPEN (≈ 0.47), highlighting ChatGPT’s use of patient-friendly language. Topic modeling identified three clusters: patient support and accessibility (ChatGPT), technical nutrition therapy (ESPEN/CSCO), and nutritional assessment and monitoring (CNS).
conclusionsChatGPT provides personalized, innovative, and patient-accessible nutritional guidance for cancer-related malnutrition, complementing traditional clinical guidelines. While guidelines remain essential for evidence-based decision-making, AI tools may enhance patient education, engagement, and self-management in digital health applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.