Reliability of ChatGPT’s Answers on Complementary Feeding: Contribution to the work of Artificial Intelligence and Health Professionals

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background: Complementary feeding is essential for infant growth, development, and health, but parents often rely on online sources for guidance, which may lack accuracy. ChatGPT, a widely used AI language model, has potential as an accessible source of health information. This study evaluates the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4’s responses to common questions about complementary feeding. Methods: : A prospective study was conducted using ChatGPT-4 to answer 20 frequently asked questions about complementary feeding. Responses were evaluated independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Answers were categorized as ”comprehensive,” ”correct but insufficient,” ”some correct or incorrect,” or ”completely incorrect.” Statistical analysis was conducted to assess inter-rater reliability and response reproducibility. Results: : ChatGPT-4 provided ”comprehensive” answers for 75% of questions and ”correct but insufficient” answers for 20%, with no responses deemed partially or completely incorrect. Inter-rater reliability was high (Cohen’s kappa: 0.859). The AI model demonstrated consistent and reproducible performance across evaluations. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 provides accurate and reproducible information on complementary feeding, aligning with professional standards. While promising as a supplementary information tool, healthcare professionals’ oversight remains critical. Further research is needed to optimize AI’s role in patient education and clinical practice.
Full text 6,699 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
Reliability of ChatGPT’s Answers on Complementary Feeding: Contribution to the work of Artificial Intelligence and Health Professionals | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 9 April 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Reliability of ChatGPT’s Answers on Complementary Feeding: Contribution to the work of Artificial Intelligence and Health Professionals Author : Emine Özdemir Kaçer 0000-0002-0111-1672 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174421995.53676261/v1 236 views 128 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Background: Complementary feeding is essential for infant growth, development, and health, but parents often rely on online sources for guidance, which may lack accuracy. ChatGPT, a widely used AI language model, has potential as an accessible source of health information. This study evaluates the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4’s responses to common questions about complementary feeding. Methods: A prospective study was conducted using ChatGPT-4 to answer 20 frequently asked questions about complementary feeding. Responses were evaluated independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Answers were categorized as ”comprehensive,” ”correct but insufficient,” ”some correct or incorrect,” or ”completely incorrect.” Statistical analysis was conducted to assess inter-rater reliability and response reproducibility. Results: ChatGPT-4 provided ”comprehensive” answers for 75% of questions and ”correct but insufficient” answers for 20%, with no responses deemed partially or completely incorrect. Inter-rater reliability was high (Cohen’s kappa: 0.859). The AI model demonstrated consistent and reproducible performance across evaluations. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 provides accurate and reproducible information on complementary feeding, aligning with professional standards. While promising as a supplementary information tool, healthcare professionals’ oversight remains critical. Further research is needed to optimize AI’s role in patient education and clinical practice. Supplementary Material File (annex, table 2.docx) Download 126.19 KB File (cf manuscript anonymised.docx) Download 65.41 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 09 April 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords chatgpt complementary feeding health information reliability parental guidance pediatrics Authors Affiliations Emine Özdemir Kaçer 0000-0002-0111-1672 [email protected] Aksaray Universitesi Tip Fakultesi View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 236 views 128 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Emine Özdemir Kaçer. Reliability of ChatGPT’s Answers on Complementary Feeding: Contribution to the work of Artificial Intelligence and Health Professionals. Authorea . 09 April 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174421995.53676261/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174421995.53676261/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a0040363390d3fe2',t:'MTc3OTUzODgxMQ=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-02T02:00:03.124865+00:00