Back

Assessing the Quality of a Personalized Prompt Generator and AI-Chatbot (ChatGPT) for Dietary and Exercise Planning in Obese Adults Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method

Linoby, A.; Suraya Mohd Dan, A.; Shahlan Kasim, S.; Zaki, S.; Sazali, R.; Yusoff, Y.; Nasir, Z.; Haziq Abidin, A.

2025-08-28 health informatics
10.1101/2025.08.27.25334528 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to personalize dietary and exercise advice for obesity management is increasingly evident. However, the effectiveness and appropriateness of AI-generated recommendations hinge significantly on input quality and structured guidance. Despite growing interest, there remains a notable gap regarding a robust and validated prompt-generation mechanism designed explicitly for obesity-related lifestyle planning. ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and refine the quality of a personalized AI-driven framework (NExGEN-ChatGPT) for dietary and exercise prescriptions in obese adults, employing the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) to capture and integrate expert consensus. MethodsA multidisciplinary expert panel, comprising 21 professionals from nutrition, medicine, psychology, fitness, and AI domains, was engaged in this study. Using structured questionnaires, the experts systematically assessed and refined six primary constructs, further detailed into several evaluative elements, resulting in the consensus validation of 111 specific criteria. ResultsFindings identified critical consensus-driven standards essential for personalized, safe, and feasible obesity management through AI. Moreover, the study revealed prioritized criteria pivotal for maintaining practical relevance, safety, and high-quality personalized recommendations. ConclusionsConsequently, this validated framework provides a substantial foundation for subsequent real-world application and further research, thereby enhancing the effectiveness, scalability, and individualization of obesity interventions leveraging AI.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.