ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misinformation in diet and nutrition is recognised as a major public health threat, with the potential to misguide dietary choices and contribute to preventable harm. To address this, we developed a Misinformation Risk Assessment Model (MisRAM), grounded in the World Health Organization’s hazard risk assessment principles. MisRAM conceptualises misleading content traits as stratifiable agents of informational adverse effects, weighed by their severity and likelihood of increasing recipient susceptibility. Building on this model, we designed the Diet-Nutrition Misinformation Risk Assessment Tool (Diet-MisRAT), a structured instrument that evaluates medium-to-long form content across four risk dimensions (inaccuracy, incompleteness, deceptiveness, health harm), yielding five-tier risk estimates from very low to very high. Validation involved five rounds: expert reviewers, trainee dietitians, postgraduate nutrition students, highly experienced nutrition professionals, and zero-shot prompt-based generative-AI risk detection. Results showed strong to very strong alignment with expert-derived benchmarks, supporting the tool’s interpretability and concurrent validity. ChatGPT demonstrated high test–retest reliability, accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and F1 scores under blinded untuned conditions, suggesting that adequately constructed, expert-designed prompting tools may help overcome training-dataset limitations. Diet-MisRAT offers a scalable, graded alternative to binary detection. Domain-calibrated risk stratification could guide proportionate interventions in content oversight, regulation, education, misinformation inoculation, and infodemic mitigation.
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.