ArticleVeterinary and animal science2026
Use of Artificial Intelligence in obtaining canine diets: nutritional inadequacy and the need for technical knowledge.
Article in Veterinary and animal science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the nutritional adequacy of dog diets formulated by four widely used Artificial Intelligence models (Manus, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini) against the recommendations of the European Pet Food Industry Federation. This was a theoretical, in silico study, no animals were fed or clinically evaluated. Using a standardized prompt, complete and balanced diets (beef and chicken) for an 8 kg adult dog were requested. Eleven formulations were analyzed using SuperCracPet® software based on United States Department of Agriculture data. Overall, 61.3% of nutrients were below the minimum recommended levels. Nutrient levels below FEDIAF minimum requirements were identified across multiple categories: energy supply was insufficient in 81% of diets, calcium levels were below recommendations in 91% of formulations, calcium-to-phosphorus ratios were outside the recommended range in 63% of diets, chlorine was absent in all formulations, vitamin D levels were below requirements in 63.7% of diets, choline in 81.8%, and linoleic acid in 72%. Only 18% of the formulations included supplementation, which was provided in insufficient quantity. If implemented chronically, these nutritional inadequacies may pose risks to bone, dermatological, immune, and metabolic health. It is concluded that, in their current form, the evaluated language models are insufficient for the autonomous formulation of canine diets, as the generated prescriptions presented multiple nutritional inadequacies. Safe application requires hybrid systems with mandatory supervision by animal scientists and veterinarians, as well as regulation to prevent avoidable risks to animal health.
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.