MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408521483 · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfaf082

From bytes to bites: application of large language models to enhance nutritional recommendations

2025· review· en· W4408521483 on OpenAlexaff
Karin Bergling, Lin‐Chun Wang, Oshini Shivakumar, Andrea Nandorine Ban, Linda W. Moore, Nancy Ginsberg, Jeroen P. Kooman, Neill Duncan, Peter Kotanko, Hanjie Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Kidney Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsByteComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT are increasingly positioned to be integrated into various aspects of daily life, with promising applications in healthcare, including personalized nutritional guidance for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, for LLM-powered nutrition support tools to reach their full potential, active collaboration of healthcare professionals, patients, caregivers and LLM experts is crucial. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on the use of LLMs as tools to enhance nutrition recommendations for patients with CKD, curated by our expertise in the field. Additionally, we considered relevant findings from adjacent fields, including diabetes and obesity management. Currently, the application of LLMs for CKD-specific nutrition support remains limited and has room for improvement. Although LLMs can generate recipe ideas, their nutritional analyses often underestimate critical food components such as electrolytes and calories. Anticipated advancements in LLMs and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are expected to enhance these capabilities, potentially enabling accurate nutritional analysis, the generation of visual aids for cooking and identification of kidney-healthy options in restaurants. While LLM-based nutritional support for patients with CKD is still in its early stages, rapid advancements are expected in the near future. Engagement from the CKD community, including healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers, will be essential to harness AI-driven improvements in nutritional care with a balanced perspective that is both critical and optimistic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.423 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Kidney JournalSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207