ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Assessment of large language model chatbots for hemodialysis meal planning: a descriptive study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have the potential to improve nutritional counseling for patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study evaluates the utility of publicly available LLMs in generating meal plans for individuals receiving hemodialysis.
methodsFifty hypothetical patient profiles were generated from United States national data and used to prompt four LLM chatbots, ChatGPT-o3-mini ® (OpenAI), Claude Sonnet 3.7 ® (Anthropic), Gemini 2.5 ® (Google), and Llama 3.1 ® (Meta), to create a single day meal plan accounting for ESKD dietary constraints. The primary outcome was concordance of LLM-generated meal plans with reference nutrition databases and specified nutrition goals. A secondary outcome was a qualitative usability assessment, as judged by three independent reviewers.
resultsAll models demonstrated substantial limitations in accurately representing nutrient content, particularly in underestimating phosphorus and potassium content in foods. Quantitatively, ChatGPT achieved the highest performance of the models studied with the highest average concordance with gold standard nutrition databases and with the lowest nutrient deviations from prompt goals. Gemini and Llama had less qualitative errors than ChatGPT and Claude, but all models frequently had vague outputs, often recommending composite foods without clear nutrient values.
conclusionCurrently, publicly available LLMs do not readily generate clinically acceptable meal plans for hemodialysis patients. All models misrepresented nutrient content and had significant usability concerns. Improvements in model architecture, knowledge bases, and domain-specific optimization will be required before LLMs can be safely used for dietary counseling for patients with ESKD.
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.