Challenges of diet planning for children using artificial intelligence

The use of machine learning in paediatric nutrition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, there has been a burgeoning interest in using machine learning methods. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the availability and ease of use of machine learning tools and an increase in the number of large, complex datasets which are suited to machine learning approaches. This review summarizes recent work in the field and sets expectations for its impact in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Much work has focused on establishing good practices and ethical frameworks to guide the use of machine learning in research. Machine learning has an established role in identifying features in 'omics' research and is emerging as a tool to generate predictive models to identify people at risk of disease and patients at risk of complications. They have been used to identify risks for malnutrition and obesity. Machine learning techniques have also been used to develop smartphone apps to track behaviour and provide healthcare advice.

SUMMARY

Machine learning techniques are reaching maturity and their impact on observational data analysis and behaviour change will come to fruition in the next 5 years. A set of standards and best practices are emerging and should be implemented by researchers and publishers.

Navigating the Landscape of Personalized Medicine: The Relevance of ChatGPT, BingChat, and Bard AI in Nephrology Literature Searches

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Literature reviews are foundational to understanding medical evidence. With AI tools like ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard AI emerging as potential aids in this domain, this study aimed to individually assess their citation accuracy within Nephrology, comparing their performance in providing precise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We generated the prompt to solicit 20 references in Vancouver style in each 12 Nephrology topics, using ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard. We verified the existence and accuracy of the provided references using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. We categorized the validity of the references from the AI chatbot into (1) incomplete, (2) fabricated, (3) inaccurate, and (4) accurate.

RESULTS

A total of 199 (83%), 158 (66%) and 112 (47%) unique references were provided from ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard, respectively. ChatGPT provided 76 (38%) accurate, 82 (41%) inaccurate, 32 (16%) fabricated and 9 (5%) incomplete references. Bing Chat provided 47 (30%) accurate, 77 (49%) inaccurate, 21 (13%) fabricated and 13 (8%) incomplete references. In contrast, Bard provided 3 (3%) accurate, 26 (23%) inaccurate, 71 (63%) fabricated and 12 (11%) incomplete references. The most common error type across platforms was incorrect DOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the field of medicine, the necessity for faultless adherence to research integrity is highlighted, asserting that even small errors cannot be tolerated. The outcomes of this investigation draw attention to inconsistent citation accuracy across the different AI tools evaluated. Despite some promising results, the discrepancies identified call for a cautious and rigorous vetting of AI-sourced references in medicine. Such chatbots, before becoming standard tools, need substantial refinements to assure unwavering precision in their outputs.