ChatGPT和人类营养师对常见营养问题的回答比较

IF 2.3 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Daniel Kirk, Elise van Eijnatten, Guido Camps
{"title":"ChatGPT和人类营养师对常见营养问题的回答比较","authors":"Daniel Kirk, Elise van Eijnatten, Guido Camps","doi":"10.1155/2023/5548684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. More people than ever seek nutrition information from online sources. The chatbot ChatGPT has seen staggering popularity since its inception and may become a resource for information in nutrition. However, the adequacy of ChatGPT to answer questions in the field of nutrition has not been investigated. Thus, the aim of this research was to investigate the competency of ChatGPT in answering common nutrition questions. Methods. Dieticians were asked to provide their most commonly asked nutrition questions and their own answers to them. We then asked the same questions to ChatGPT and sent both sets of answers to other dieticians (N = 18) or nutritionists and experts in the domain of each question (N = 9) to be graded based on scientific correctness, actionability, and comprehensibility. The grades were also averaged to give an overall score, and group means of the answers to each question were compared using permutation tests. Results. The overall grades for ChatGPT were higher than those from the dieticians for the overall scores in five of the eight questions we received. ChatGPT also had higher grades on five occasions for scientific correctness, four for actionability, and five for comprehensibility. In contrast, none of the answers from the dieticians had a higher average score than ChatGPT for any of the questions, both overall and for each of the grading components. Conclusions. Our results suggest that ChatGPT can be used to answer nutrition questions that are frequently asked to dieticians and provide encouraging support for the role of chatbots in offering nutrition support.","PeriodicalId":16587,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism","volume":"344 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Answers between ChatGPT and Human Dieticians to Common Nutrition Questions\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Kirk, Elise van Eijnatten, Guido Camps\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/5548684\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. More people than ever seek nutrition information from online sources. The chatbot ChatGPT has seen staggering popularity since its inception and may become a resource for information in nutrition. However, the adequacy of ChatGPT to answer questions in the field of nutrition has not been investigated. Thus, the aim of this research was to investigate the competency of ChatGPT in answering common nutrition questions. Methods. Dieticians were asked to provide their most commonly asked nutrition questions and their own answers to them. We then asked the same questions to ChatGPT and sent both sets of answers to other dieticians (N = 18) or nutritionists and experts in the domain of each question (N = 9) to be graded based on scientific correctness, actionability, and comprehensibility. The grades were also averaged to give an overall score, and group means of the answers to each question were compared using permutation tests. Results. The overall grades for ChatGPT were higher than those from the dieticians for the overall scores in five of the eight questions we received. ChatGPT also had higher grades on five occasions for scientific correctness, four for actionability, and five for comprehensibility. In contrast, none of the answers from the dieticians had a higher average score than ChatGPT for any of the questions, both overall and for each of the grading components. Conclusions. Our results suggest that ChatGPT can be used to answer nutrition questions that are frequently asked to dieticians and provide encouraging support for the role of chatbots in offering nutrition support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism\",\"volume\":\"344 9\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5548684\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5548684","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。越来越多的人从网上获取营养信息。聊天机器人ChatGPT自诞生以来就受到了惊人的欢迎,并可能成为营养信息的资源。然而,ChatGPT是否足以回答营养领域的问题尚未得到调查。因此,本研究的目的是调查ChatGPT在回答常见营养问题方面的能力。方法。营养师被要求提供他们最常被问到的营养问题以及他们自己的答案。然后,我们向ChatGPT提出同样的问题,并将两组答案发送给其他营养师(N = 18)或营养学家和每个问题领域的专家(N = 9),根据科学的准确性、可操作性和可理解性进行评分。这些分数也被取平均值以得出一个总分,并使用排列测试对每个问题答案的组均值进行比较。结果。在我们收到的8个问题中,ChatGPT的整体得分比营养师的整体得分高5个。ChatGPT在科学正确性方面也有5个更高的分数,可操作性方面有4个,可理解性方面有5个。相比之下,没有一个营养师的答案在任何一个问题上的平均得分高于ChatGPT,无论是总体上还是每个评分部分。结论。我们的研究结果表明,ChatGPT可以用来回答营养师经常被问到的营养问题,并为聊天机器人在提供营养支持方面的作用提供鼓励支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Answers between ChatGPT and Human Dieticians to Common Nutrition Questions
Background. More people than ever seek nutrition information from online sources. The chatbot ChatGPT has seen staggering popularity since its inception and may become a resource for information in nutrition. However, the adequacy of ChatGPT to answer questions in the field of nutrition has not been investigated. Thus, the aim of this research was to investigate the competency of ChatGPT in answering common nutrition questions. Methods. Dieticians were asked to provide their most commonly asked nutrition questions and their own answers to them. We then asked the same questions to ChatGPT and sent both sets of answers to other dieticians (N = 18) or nutritionists and experts in the domain of each question (N = 9) to be graded based on scientific correctness, actionability, and comprehensibility. The grades were also averaged to give an overall score, and group means of the answers to each question were compared using permutation tests. Results. The overall grades for ChatGPT were higher than those from the dieticians for the overall scores in five of the eight questions we received. ChatGPT also had higher grades on five occasions for scientific correctness, four for actionability, and five for comprehensibility. In contrast, none of the answers from the dieticians had a higher average score than ChatGPT for any of the questions, both overall and for each of the grading components. Conclusions. Our results suggest that ChatGPT can be used to answer nutrition questions that are frequently asked to dieticians and provide encouraging support for the role of chatbots in offering nutrition support.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism
Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies covering the broad and multidisciplinary field of human nutrition and metabolism. The journal welcomes submissions on studies related to obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, molecular and cellular biology of nutrients, foods and dietary supplements, as well as macro- and micronutrients including vitamins and minerals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信