Back

Response consistency of ChatGPT-4o for Type 2 Diabetes Nutrition and Physical-activity Recommendations: A Pilot NLP-based Assessment of GPT outputs

Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.-J.; Hu, Q.; Galaviz, K. I.; Casanova, I. G.; Colditz, J.; Valdez, D.

2026-06-26 nutrition
10.64898/2026.06.23.26356399 medRxiv
Show abstract

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are increasingly used by the public to seek guidance on diet and physical activity for type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and management. However, the consistency of model outputs across different users and disease-stage scenarios remains insufficiently characterized. This pilot study aims to evaluate the word-level and semantic-level consistency of GPT-4os diet and physical activity responses for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. We designed 12 prompts covering four categories: prediabetes, diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D), diagnosed T2D with complications, and general questions that did not specify dysglycemia stage. Word-level similarity was quantified with Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) cosine scores; sentence-level semantic similarity was measured using large language models (LLMs) - DeBERTa-v3 MNLI to calculate the entailment probabilities. The results showed that mean cosine similarity across users was moderate (0.44-0.66), whereas mean entailment similarity was higher (0.68-0.81). Across stages, word-level similarity was low to moderate (0.28-0.63) and entailment similarity remained moderate to high (0.63-0.80). Low similarity commonly referenced distinct food choices, operational details, safety warnings, and stage-specific suggestions. GPT-4o generated semantically consistent but variably detailed responses and the moderate semantic variation suggested limited differentiation of response content across diabetes-related stages in this pilot consistency assessment.

Matching journals

The top 8 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.