ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Artificial intelligence diet plans underestimate nutrient intake compared to dietitians in adolescents.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-Dependent Performance of Human Experts and AI Systems in Pediatric Menu Evaluation.Nutrients · 2026Observational
- Article
- Artificial intelligence in child nutrition and eating behavior: from prediction to gastronomic mediation.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although artificial intelligence (AI)-based nutrition recommendations are becoming increasingly common among the public, the accuracy and reliability of diets produced especially for adolescents in the growth and development period are not sufficiently known. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical validity of AI by comparing the nutritional content of diets generated by different AI models with dietitian reference plans. Methods: A total of 60 three-day diet plans were generated in two sessions by five AI models (ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude 4.1, Bing Chat-5GPT, and Perplexity) for four standardized adolescent profiles in this cross-sectional and comparative study. A dietitian reference plan was prepared for each profile. Energy and macro-micronutrients were analyzed with BeBiS. Comparisons were evaluated with single-sample Results: AI models tended to systematically undercalculate energy (bias: +695 kcal), protein (+19.9 g), lipid (+15.8 g), and carbohydrate (+114.6 g). In macronutrient percentages, protein (21.5-23.7%) and lipid (41.5-44.5%) ratios were above the recommended adolescent guidelines, while carbohydrate ratios (32.4-36.3%) were significantly below. Significant variation was observed between models in micronutrient contents, and no model showed consistent proximity to the dietitian across all nutrients. Conclusion: AI models have exhibited clinically significant deviations in diet plans for adolescents at both macro and micro levels. The findings indicate that AI-based dietary recommendations are not appropriate to use without professional supervision, emphasizing the need for model improvements for more reliable data generation in this area.
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.