ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
Accuracy of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and DeepSeek in Carbohydrate Counting.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the accuracy of four general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models-ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Claude (Anthropic) and DeepSeek (DeepSeek AI)-in calculating the carbohydrate content of meals compared with clinicians-calculated reference values. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe primary endpoint was equivalence between clinicians and AI-generated calculations within an error margin of ±5%. One-hundred twenty-four meals were analysed, equally distributed among breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. Carbohydrate contents were jointly determined by two paediatric diabetologists and one clinical nutritionist using the USDA FoodData Central and CREA Italian Food Composition Tables. Each AI model received identical, standardized prompts in English describing the meals. Statistical analyses included the Two One-Sided Tests procedure, the Bland-Altman plots, the Wilcoxon signed-rank and the Spearman correlations.
resultsThe clinicians' median carbohydrate content was 30.32 g. Model medians were 30.75 g (ChatGPT), 30.40 g (Gemini), 29.75 g (DeepSeek) and 29.25 g (Claude). ChatGPT showed the smallest bias, the narrowest limits of agreement, and the highest correlation with clinicians' calculation. Only ChatGPT met the predefined ±5% equivalence criterion, whereas Gemini and DeepSeek achieved equivalence within a ±10% margin. Claude displayed the largest negative bias and the widest dispersion.
conclusionsChatGPT most accurately approximated clinicians' carbohydrate calculation among the tested AI models and fulfilled strict clinical equivalence criteria. Although the other models tended to underestimate carbohydrate content, their mean deviations remained within clinically acceptable limits. These findings suggest that AI tools, particularly ChatGPT, may serve as useful adjuncts for carbohydrate counting for people with type 1 diabetes, supporting self-management.
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.