Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study assesses large language models' ability to classify ultra-processed foods, highlighting the need for prompt calibration.
This cross-sectional study compared three LLMs (Grok 4.1, Gemini 3, and ChatGPT 5.2) in classifying ultra-processed foods (UPF) using best-selling products from leading supermarket chains covering 53.2% of the national market. Of 3001 products, 2920 with complete ingredient information were included; two trained dietitians assigned NOVA groups as the reference standard. In the reference classification, 74.3% of products were UPF. Under the baseline prompt, all models underestimated UPF prevalence compared with the reference standard (p< 0.001). ChatGPT 5.2 yielded the highest binary UPF detection performance (accuracy: 69.01%; sensitivity: 59.01%; specificity: 98.00%; F1: 73.88%). Prompt sensitivity analyses revealed that a minimal prompt substantially outperformed the detailed baseline for most models (Gemini 3 F1: 94.20%; ChatGPT 5.2 F1: 92.62%). Low inter-run agreement (κ: 0.01–0.27) indicated sensitivity to model updates, supporting prompt calibration and human oversight. These findings suggest that off-the-shelf LLMs require prompt calibration and human oversight before UPF surveillance workflows.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bayram et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: