Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

HealthGenie: Empowering Users with Healthy Dietary Guidance through Knowledge Graph and Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that pairing a conversational LLM with a directly manipulable knowledge graph lets users obtain personalized dietary guidance with fewer conversational turns and lower cognitive load than a text-only chatbot plus separate…

desk verdict Useful system paper with an overclaimed headline: the cognitive-load reduction is null in the paper's own NASA-TLX results, but the interaction design and qualitative findings are worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14594 v1 pith:GQQJ6GCP submitted 2025-04-20 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

Fan Gao , Xinjie Zhao , Ding Xia , Zhongyi Zhou , Rui Yang , Jinghui Lu , Hang Jiang , Chanjun Park
show 1 more author
Irene Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CL
keywords KnowledgeGraphsLargeLanguageModelsNutritionHealthInteractiveSystemsHuman-ComputerInteractionPersonalizedDietaryGuidanceInformationVisualization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that people get more useful, personalized dietary recommendations when an LLM's conversational answers are paired with an interactive knowledge graph they can directly manipulate, rather than through the usual linear text chat. The proposed system, HealthGenie, turns each query into a visualized subgraph of recipes, ingredients, and health benefits; users include or exclude nodes, and the LLM regenerates recommendations from the updated graph. In a within-subject study with 12 experienced LLM users, the authors report that this circular workflow outperformed a baseline chat-plus-separate-graph condition on task completion and perceived information quality, while lowering self-reported workload. If the claim is right, it points to a general interaction pattern: conversational AI becomes more transparent and actionable when its knowledge is visible, editable, and re-queried.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the circular interaction workflow, a loop of four stages: the user asks a query; the LLM classifies intent and parses the query into symbolic constraints such as calorieCap=400 or isVegan=true; a retrieval agent extracts the matching subgraph from a recipe knowledge graph and visualizes it as a node-link diagram; and the user manipulates the graph by including or excluding nodes, which updates the constraint store and triggers a new LLM response and a refreshed subgraph. This loop replaces part of the conversational back-and-forth with direct visual editing, which is the specific mechanism the user study attributes the benefits to. The knowledge graph itself is the grounding artifact, storing recipes, ingredients, nutrients, and relations such as contains, belongsToCuisine, and substitutableBy in a hybrid CSV-index plus in-memory format for real-time subgraph extraction.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run the same four tasks with an integrated control that shows the same graph and explanations but lets users refine choices only by typing, with node-level clicking disabled. If task completion, interaction turns, and self-reported mental workload are unchanged, the circular interaction loop is not the active ingredient; if they improve, the effect is not merely integration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a circular interaction loop linking the user, the LLM, and a knowledge graph—query, visualized retrieval, direct graph manipulation, refined query—lets non-expert users reach dietary recommendations matched to health conditions with less conversational effort than text-only LLM use. HealthGenie grounds each answer in a curated recipe knowledge graph (built from roughly 12,500 recipes, 27,500 ingredient mentions, over 100,000 nodes, and 45 relation types), extracts symbolic constraints from the user's words, and visualizes the matching subgraph as a node-link diagram. Clicking a node to include or exclude it is logged and fed back into the LLM, so the next recommendation reflects the user's evolving preferences. In a counterbalanced within-subject comparison with 12 participants, the authors report that HealthGenie produced more accurate task completion and higher satisfaction in recipe adaptation tasks, and that participants found the visual output easy to use for revising recipes and selecting quickly.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the baseline—a standard chat interface plus a separate, simpler graph lookup—isolates HealthGenie's circular interaction loop as the cause of the measured benefits; if mere integration accounts for the gains, the central claim is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the circular workflow is what helps, future conversational recommenders can cut interaction turns by letting users edit a visual representation of the system's current knowledge state rather than typing every refinement.
  • Personalized health guidance can stay groundable: every recommendation traces back to visible nodes and edges, so users can check why a dish was suggested and undo any constraint.
  • The same pattern should transfer beyond recipes—any domain with a structured entity space, such as medication interactions, exercise plans, or financial products, could pair chat with editable graphs.
  • Designers should expect a speed–scope tradeoff: more prompts and richer graph updates improve personalization but raise latency, and larger graphs will require sparsification or type-organized views to remain legible.
  • The strongest measured benefits appear in adaptation tasks, such as veganizing a recipe or completing a missing ingredient, suggesting the loop helps most when users revise rather than when they first search.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An integrated control that keeps the same graph and explanations but disables node-level include/exclude would isolate whether the circular loop, rather than simple integration, drives the reported gains; the paper's current baseline cannot answer this.
  • The interaction log that records every node toggle is itself a measurement instrument: counting include/exclude actions versus typed clarification turns could quantify how much of the saved effort comes from direct graph manipulation.
  • The same query-visualize-manipulate loop should transfer to other structured advice domains, such as medication interactions, exercise planning, or financial product selection, wherever users need to revise constraints iteratively.
  • The reported Western-centric recipe coverage implies the binding constraint is knowledge-graph content, not interface design; a cross-cuisine evaluation with parallel recipe coverage in both supported languages would test whether the workflow generalizes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HealthGenie, an interactive dietary guidance system that combines a conversational LLM with a visualized knowledge graph. It introduces a 'circular' interaction workflow in which users can query, visualize, and manipulate graph nodes to refine recommendations. The authors report a formative study (N=7), a system implementation with a recipe KG of over 100,000 nodes, and a within-subject evaluation (N=12) comparing HealthGenie to a baseline of ChatGPT plus a standalone KG interface. Based on this evaluation, the abstract and conclusion claim that HealthGenie supports personalized dietary guidance while reducing interaction effort and cognitive load.

Significance. The system design is a useful contribution: the formative study motivates concrete design goals, the KG construction pipeline is described in detail, and the evaluation includes a counterbalanced within-subject design with both quantitative ratings and qualitative feedback. The visualization-plus-conversation interaction pattern is timely for the LLM-KG interface community. However, the headline claim of reduced cognitive load is not supported by the reported data, and the baseline condition conflates integration with the proposed workflow. As presently analyzed, the evidence supports modest usability and preference findings rather than the stronger causal claims in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7.3, Fig. 7] The NASA-TLX comparisons show no significant differences for Mental Demand (M=4.58, SD=2.02, W=10.00, p=1.00), Physical Demand (p=0.62), or Temporal Demand (p=1.00), and the paper reports no objective measure of interaction effort (e.g., task time, number of turns, or clicks). With N=12 the study is also underpowered to detect small effects. The abstract's statement that HealthGenie reduces 'interaction effort and cognitive load' is therefore contradicted by the manuscript's own primary workload evidence; the authors should either present additional supporting data or revise the claim to something like 'participants perceived the integrated interface favorably'.
  2. [Sec. 6.3] The baseline is a ChatGPT web application plus a separate KG interface with basic retrieval, whereas the HealthGenie condition is a single integrated system. Because the baseline requires users to manage two separate tools, any observed improvement in ratings could be due to integration itself rather than to the proposed circular visualization workflow. The causal interpretation of all RQ1-RQ3 differences is thus not warranted; the authors need a matched integrated control (or should explicitly reframe the contribution as a system-level comparison).
  3. [Secs. 7.1 and 7.2] The statistical reporting contains multiple apparent errors that prevent interpretation. Examples include 'p=0.1.00' in Section 7.1 for Accuracy, the 'p=0.042' result for Granularity being described as statistically significant without correction for multiple comparisons, and the Task 2 'Task Complete Accurately' row reporting MDn=0.75 with p=0.81, which is inconsistent with a meaningful difference. These values must be corrected and the analysis described precisely (including which test was used for each comparison and how order effects were handled), or the quantitative support for the paper's claims is unreliable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript retains ACM formatting placeholders such as 'Conference acronym ’XX', 'Woodstock, NY', and the CCS Concepts boilerplate 'Do Not Use This Code'; these must be replaced before any archival submission.
  2. [Sec. 2.3] The sentence 'Their evaluation demonstrates that s can offer valuable information' contains a stray 's' and should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The phrase 'all of sher stated preferences' is a typo for 'all of her stated preferences'.
  4. [Sec. 7.2, Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'for both based and our system' but should read 'for both baseline and our system'.
  5. [Sec. 7.2] The sentence reporting Group 1 contains a double comma ('SD = 0.71,, Baseline:'); also, the text should explain why a mixed ANOVA was used for RQ2 but Wilcoxon tests for RQ1 and RQ3, and how the order variable was tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: user-study evaluation is independent of system construction; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing pointer in the future-work discussion.

full rationale

HealthGenie is a systems-and-evaluation paper, not a derivation. The central claims are empirical: the system combines an LLM with a knowledge graph visualization, and an N=12 within-subject user study compares it against a baseline ChatGPT plus standalone KG interface. The knowledge graph is built from an external recipe corpus (approximately 12,500 recipes) using zero-shot LLM extraction, and no parameter is fitted to the study's outcome measures. The user ratings for RQ1 (information perception), RQ2 (preference support), and RQ3 (workload and experience) are collected directly from participants and are not predicted by any formula that includes those same ratings as inputs. Thus there is no "prediction" that reduces by construction to a fitted input. The only reference to the authors' prior work is [77] (AGENTiGraph) in Section 8.3, cited as a general pointer for future personalized knowledge graph construction; it is not load-bearing for the system design or the evaluation. The abstract's claim of "reducing interaction effort and cognitive load" is weakened by the study's own null NASA-TLX results in Section 7.3, and the baseline is acknowledged in Section 6.3 as a separate ChatGPT application plus a "dummy KG retriever," which may conflate integration effects with the specific circular workflow. Those are internal-validity and correctness concerns, not circularity: the comparison is still an external, empirical measurement rather than a self-referential derivation. No quoted passage shows an equation, definition, or fitted parameter that makes an output equivalent to an input by construction. The paper is therefore self-contained as an empirical evaluation, with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the LLM-extracted KG, the adequacy of the N=12 user study, and the fairness of the baseline comparison. No mathematically fitted parameters are used; assumptions are domain-level.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The knowledge graph, including LLM-extracted relations from roughly 12 million tokens, is accurate enough for safe dietary recommendations.
    HealthGenie grounds all recommendations in this KG; errors in extraction propagate to user-facing advice. See Section 5.1.
  • domain assumption Twelve participants with high education and high LLM familiarity is an adequate sample to evaluate the system's usefulness.
    The study draws conclusions from N=12 within-subject ratings; small and skewed sample limits generalizability. See Section 6.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The baseline condition (ChatGPT plus a standalone knowledge-graph interface) is a valid control for the HealthGenie condition.
    The baseline separates the two components instead of providing a comparable integrated interface, so the controlled comparison may overstate HealthGenie's benefit. See Section 6.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HealthGenie: Empowering Users with Healthy Dietary Guidance through Knowledge Graph and Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQQJ6GCP

@misc{pith2026250414594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HealthGenie: Empowering Users with Healthy Dietary Guidance through Knowledge Graph and Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQQJ6GCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14594}
}
read the original abstract

Seeking dietary guidance often requires navigating complex professional knowledge while accommodating individual health conditions. Knowledge Graphs (KGs) offer structured and interpretable nutritional information, whereas Large Language Models (LLMs) naturally facilitate conversational recommendation delivery. In this paper, we present HealthGenie, an interactive system that combines the strengths of LLMs and KGs to provide personalized dietary recommendations along with hierarchical information visualization for a quick and intuitive overview. Upon receiving a user query, HealthGenie performs query refinement and retrieves relevant information from a pre-built KG. The system then visualizes and highlights pertinent information, organized by defined categories, while offering detailed, explainable recommendation rationales. Users can further tailor these recommendations by adjusting preferences interactively. Our evaluation, comprising a within-subject comparative experiment and an open-ended discussion, demonstrates that HealthGenie effectively supports users in obtaining personalized dietary guidance based on their health conditions while reducing interaction effort and cognitive load. These findings highlight the potential of LLM-KG integration in supporting decision-making through explainable and visualized information. We examine the system's usefulness and effectiveness with an N=12 within-subject study and provide design considerations for future systems that integrate conversational LLM and KG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unlike the traditional linear workflow (a) of LLMs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Circular Interaction Workflow: Users query an LLM, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overview of HealthGenie interface, which integrates a visualized nutritional knowledge graph and a conversational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Interaction with the Knowledge Graph: The visu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Participants’ rating on output features of HealthGenie. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Participants’ self-reported rating on usefulness and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bilal Abu-Salih, Muhammad Al-Qurishi, Mohammed Alweshah, Mohammad Al-Smadi, Reem Alfayez, and Heba Saadeh. 2023. Healthcare knowledge graph construction: A systematic review of the state-of-the-art, open issues, and oppor- tunities. Journal of Big Data 10, 1 (2023), 81

    2023

  2. [2]

    Oshin Agarwal, Heming Ge, Siamak Shakeri, and Rami Al-Rfou. 2021. Knowledge Graph Based Synthetic Corpus Generation for Knowledge-Enhanced Language Model Pre-training. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North Ameri- can Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Kristina Toutanova, Anna Rumshisky, Luke...

    2021

  3. [3]

    Oscar Alvarado, Nyi Nyi Htun, Yucheng Jin, and Katrien Verbert. 2022. A system- atic review of interaction design strategies for group recommendation systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–51

    2022

  4. [4]

    Trevor Ashby, Braden K Webb, Gregory Knapp, Jackson Searle, and Nancy Fulda

  5. [5]

    Karin Bergling, Lin-Chun Wang, Oshini Shivakumar, Andrea Nandorine Ban, Linda W Moore, Nancy Ginsberg, Jeroen Kooman, Neill Duncan, Peter Kotanko, and Hanjie Zhang. 2025. From Bytes to Bites: Application of Large Language Models to Enhance Nutritional Recommendations in CKD.Clinical Kidney Journal (2025), sfaf082

    2025

  6. [6]

    Xiwen Cai, Di Weng, Taotao Fu, Siwei Fu, Yongheng Wang, and Yingcai Wu

  7. [7]

    Kuo-En Chang, Yao-Ting Sung, and Ine-Dai Chen. 2002. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71, 1 (2002), 5–23

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Chun-Wei Chiang, Zhuoran Lu, Zhuoyan Li, and Ming Yin. 2024. Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil’s Advocate. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 103–119

    work page 2024

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

    2017

  2. [10]

    Rion Brattig Correia, Jordan C Rozum, Leonard Cross, Jack Felag, Michael Gallant, Ziqi Guo, Bruce W Herr, Aehong Min, Jon Sanchez-Valle, Deborah Stungis Rocha, et al. 2025. myAURA: a personalized health library for epilepsy management via knowledge graph sparsification and vis...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Steven Cox, Stanley C Ahalt, James Balhoff, Chris Bizon, Karamarie Fecho, Yaphet Kebede, Kenneth Morton, Alexander Tropsha, Patrick Wang, Hao Xu, et al. 2020. Visualization environment for federated knowledge graphs: development of an interactive biomedical query language and ...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Hejie Cui, Jiaying Lu, Shiyu Wang, Ran Xu, Wenjing Ma, Shaojun Yu, Yue Yu, Xuan Kan, Tianfan Fu, Chen Ling, et al. 2023. A survey on knowledge graphs for healthcare: Resources, application progress, and promise. In ICML 3rd Workshop on Interpretable Machine Learning in Healthc...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Mehak Preet Dhaliwal, Andong Hua, Laya Pullela, Ryan Burke, and Yao Qin. [n. d.]. NutriBench: A Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models in Nutrition Estimation from Meal Descriptions. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

  6. [14]

    Haoxiang Fan, Guanzheng Chen, Xingbo Wang, and Zhenhui Peng. 2024. Lesson- Planner: Assisting novice teachers to prepare pedagogy-driven lesson plans with large language models. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–20

    2024

  7. [15]

    Peiqi Guo, Guancheng Liu, Xiaoling Xiang, and Ruopeng An. 2025. From AI to the Table: A Systematic Review of ChatGPT’s Potential and Performance in Meal Planning and Dietary Recommendations. Dietetics 4, 1 (2025), 7

    2025

  8. [16]

    Zirui Guo, Lianghao Xia, Yanhua Yu, Tu Ao, and Chao Huang. 2024. Lightrag: Simple and fast retrieval-augmented generation. (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Fred X Han, Di Niu, Haolan Chen, Kunfeng Lai, Yancheng He, and Yu Xu. 2019. A deep generative approach to search extrapolation and recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 1771–1779

    2019

  10. [18]

    Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psy- chology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183

    1988

  11. [19]

    Steven Haussmann, Oshani Seneviratne, Yu Chen, Yarden Ne’eman, James Codella, Ching-Hua Chen, Deborah L McGuinness, and Mohammed J Zaki. 2019. FoodKG: a semantics-driven knowledge graph for food recommendation. In The Semantic Web–ISWC 2019: 18th International Semantic Web Con...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Xing He, Rui Zhang, Rubina Rizvi, Jake Vasilakes, Xi Yang, Yi Guo, Zhe He, Mattia Prosperi, Jinhai Huo, Jordan Alpert, et al. 2019. ALOHA: developing an interactive graph-based visualization for dietary supplement knowledge graph through user-centered design. BMC medical infor...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Marti Hearst and Melanie Tory. 2019. Would you like a chart with that? incorpo- rating visualizations into conversational interfaces. In 2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 1–5

    2019

  14. [22]

    Chao-Wen Hsuan Yuan, Tzu-Wei Yu, Jia-Yu Pan, and Wen-Chieh Lin. 2024. KGScope: Interactive Visual Exploration of Knowledge Graphs With Embedding- Based Guidance. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 12 (2024), 7702–7716. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.202...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Qing Huang, Zhenyu Wan, Zhenchang Xing, Changjing Wang, Jieshan Chen, Xiwei Xu, and Qinghua Lu. 2023. Let’s Chat to Find the APIs: Connecting Human, LLM and Knowledge Graph through AI Chain. In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE)...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Yixin Ji, Kaixin Wu, Juntao Li, Wei Chen, Mingjie Zhong, Xu Jia, and Min Zhang

  17. [25]

    Xiaoyun Jia, Yan Pang, and Liangni Sally Liu. 2021. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. In Healthcare, Vol. 9. MDPI, 1740

    2021

  18. [26]

    Jinhao Jiang, Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yang Song, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Kg-agent: An efficient autonomous agent framework for complex reasoning over knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11163 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Peiling Jiang, Jude Rayan, Steven P Dow, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Graphologue: Exploring large language model responses with interactive diagrams. In Proceed- ings of the 36th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology . 1–20

    2023

  20. [28]

    In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024

    Retrieval and reasoning on KGs: Integrate knowledge graphs into large language models for complex question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024 . 7598–7610

    2024

  21. [29]

    Efstathios Kaloudis, Victoria Kouti, Foteini-Maria Triantafillou, Patroklos Ven- touris, Rafail Pavlidis, and Vasiliki Bountziouka. 2025. AI-Powered Analysis of Weight Loss Reports from Reddit: Unlocking Social Media’s Potential in Dietary Assessment. Nutrients 17, 5 (2025), 818

    2025

  22. [30]

    Hsu-Ju Kao, Tsair-Wei Chien, Wen-Chung Wang, Willy Chou, and Julie Chi Chow

  23. [31]

    Nabin Khanal, Chun Meng Yu, Jui-Cheng Chiu, Anav Chaudhary, Ziyue Zhang, Kakani Katija, and Angus G Forbes. 2024. FathomGPT: A natural language interface for interactively exploring ocean science data. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software ...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Anirudha Joshi, Mandar Rane, Debjani Roy, Nagraj Emmadi, Padma Srinivasan, N Kumarasamy, Sanjay Pujari, Davidson Solomon, Rashmi Rodrigues, DG Saple, et al. 2014. Supporting treatment of people living with HIV/AIDS in resource limited settings with IVRs. In Proceedings of the ...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Bart P Knijnenburg, Martijn C Willemsen, Zeno Gantner, Hakan Soncu, and Chris Newell. 2012. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 22 (2012), 441–504

    2012

  26. [34]

    Philippe Laban, Jesse Vig, Marti Hearst, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu

  27. [35]

    Medicine 102, 25 (2023), e34068

    Assessing ChatGPT’s capacity for clinical decision support in pediatrics: a comparative study with pediatricians using KIDMAP of Rasch analysis. Medicine 102, 25 (2023), e34068

    2023

  28. [36]

    Séverin Lemaignan, Mathieu Warnier, E Akin Sisbot, Aurélie Clodic, and Rachid Alami. 2017. Artificial cognition for social human–robot interaction: An imple- mentation. Artificial Intelligence 247 (2017), 45–69

    2017

  29. [37]

    Taewan Kim, Donghoon Shin, Young-Ho Kim, and Hwajung Hong. 2024. Diary- Mate: Understanding User Perceptions and Experience in Human-AI Collabora- tion for Personal Journaling. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2024

  30. [38]

    Harry Li, Gabriel Appleby, and Ashley Suh. 2024. A preliminary roadmap for llms as assistants in exploring, analyzing, and visualizing knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01425 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Haotian Li, Yong Wang, Songheng Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Huamin Qu. 2021. KG4Vis: A knowledge graph-based approach for visualization recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 1 (2021), 195–205

    2021

  32. [40]

    In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Fan Gao, et al

    Beyond the chat: Executable and verifiable text-editing with llms. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Fan Gao, et al. Technology. 1–23

    2018

  33. [41]

    Retno Larasati, Anna De Liddo, and Enrico Motta. 2021. AI healthcare system interface: explanation design for non-expert user trust. In ACMIUI-WS 2021: Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI 2021 Workshops , Vol. 2903. CEUR Workshop Proceedings

    2021

  34. [42]

    Yiren Liu, Mengxia Yu, Meng Jiang, and Yun Huang. 2023. Creative Research Question Generation for Human-Computer Interaction Research.. In IUI Work- shops. 58–66

    2023

  35. [43]

    Harry Li, Gabriel Appleby, Camelia Daniela Brumar, Remco Chang, and Ashley Suh. 2023. Knowledge graphs in practice: Characterizing their users, challenges, and visualization opportunities. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 30, 1 (2023), 584–594

    2023

  36. [44]

    Ashlee Milton, Juan F Maestre, Abhishek Roy, Rebecca Umbach, and Stevie Chancellor. 2024. Seeking in Cycles: How Users Leverage Personal Information Ecosystems to Find Mental Health Information. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  37. [45]

    Paweł Niszczota and Iga Rybicka. 2023. The credibility of dietary advice formu- lated by ChatGPT: Robo-diets for people with food allergies. Nutrition 112 (2023), 112076

    2023

  38. [46]

    Zhiqiang Liao, Jian Wang, Zhuozheng Shi, Lintao Lu, and Hitoshi Tabata. 2024. Revolutionary potential of ChatGPT in constructing intelligent clinical decision support systems. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 52, 2 (2024), 125–129

    2024

  39. [47]

    Tianjian Liu, Hongzheng Zhao, Yuheng Liu, Xingbo Wang, and Zhenhui Peng

  40. [48]

    In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Compeer: A generative conversational agent for proactive peer support. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–22

  41. [49]

    Jianing Qiu, Kyle Lam, Guohao Li, Amish Acharya, Tien Yin Wong, Ara Darzi, Wu Yuan, and Eric J Topol. 2024. LLM-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence 6, 12 (2024), 1418–1420

    2024

  42. [50]

    Marcello Maida, Ciro Celsa, Louis HS Lau, Dario Ligresti, Stefano Baraldo, Daryl Ramai, Gabriele Di Maria, Marco Cannemi, Antonio Facciorusso, and Calogero Cammà. 2024. The application of large language models in gastroenterology: a review of the literature. Cancers 16, 19 (20...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Arya Rao, John Kim, Meghana Kamineni, Michael Pang, Winston Lie, Keith J Dreyer, and Marc D Succi. 2023. Evaluating GPT as an adjunct for radiologic decision making: GPT-4 versus GPT-3.5 in a breast imaging pilot. Journal of the American College of Radiology 20, 10 (2023), 990–997

    2023

  44. [52]

    Arya Rao, Michael Pang, John Kim, Meghana Kamineni, Winston Lie, Anoop K Prasad, Adam Landman, Keith Dreyer, and Marc D Succi. 2023. Assessing the utility of ChatGPT throughout the entire clinical workflow: development and usability study. Journal of Medical Internet Research ...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Allard Oelen and Sören Auer. 2024. Leveraging Large Language Models for Realizing Truly Intelligent User Interfaces. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

    2024

  46. [54]

    Shawn T O’Neil, Kevin Schaper, Glass Elsarboukh, Justin T Reese, Sierra AT Moxon, Nomi L Harris, Monica C Munoz-Torres, Peter N Robinson, Melissa A Haendel, and Christopher J Mungall. 2024. Phenomics Assistant: An Interface for LLM-based Biomedical Knowledge Graph Exploration....

    2024

  47. [55]

    Rob Procter, Peter Tolmie, and Mark Rouncefield. 2023. Holding AI to account: challenges for the delivery of trustworthy AI in healthcare. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 2 (2023), 1–34

    2023

  48. [56]

    Andrea Sosa-Holwerda, Oak-Hee Park, Kembra Albracht-Schulte, Surya Niraula, Leslie Thompson, and Wilna Oldewage-Theron. 2024. The role of artificial intelligence in nutrition research: a scoping review. Nutrients 16, 13 (2024), 2066

    2024

  49. [57]

    Niroop Channa Rajashekar, Yeo Eun Shin, Yuan Pu, Sunny Chung, Kisung You, Mauro Giuffre, Colleen E Chan, Theo Saarinen, Allen Hsiao, Jasjeet Sekhon, et al

  50. [58]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Human-algorithmic interaction using a large language model-augmented artificial intelligence clinical decision support system. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jiashuo Sun, Chengjin Xu, Lumingyuan Tang, Saizhuo Wang, Chen Lin, Yeyun Gong, Lionel M Ni, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2023. Think-on-graph: Deep and responsible reasoning of large language model on knowledge graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07697 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Annalisa Szymanski, Brianna L Wimer, Oghenemaro Anuyah, Heather A Eicher- Miller, and Ronald A Metoyer. 2024. Integrating expertise in llms: crafting a customized nutrition assistant with refined template instructions. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Bhuvan Sachdeva, Pragnya Ramjee, Geeta Fulari, Kaushik Murali, and Mohit Jain

  54. [62]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10354 (2024)

    Learnings from a Large-Scale Deployment of an LLM-Powered Expert-in- the-Loop Healthcare Chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10354 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Alberto Santos, Ana R Colaço, Annelaura B Nielsen, Lili Niu, Maximilian Strauss, Philipp E Geyer, Fabian Coscia, Nicolai J Wewer Albrechtsen, Filip Mundt, Lars Juhl Jensen, et al. 2022. A knowledge graph to interpret clinical proteomics data. Nature biotechnology 40, 5 (2022), 692–702

    2022

  56. [64]

    Priti Shah, Richard E Mayer, and Mary Hegarty. 1999. Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehen- sion. Journal of educational psychology 91, 4 (1999), 690

    1999

  57. [65]

    Laslo Welz and Carsten Lanquillon. 2024. Enhancing large language models through external domain knowledge. In International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction. Springer, 135–146

    2024

  58. [66]

    Aaron Springer and Steve Whittaker. 2019. Progressive disclosure: empirically motivated approaches to designing effective transparency. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces . 107–120

    2019

  59. [67]

    Lars St, Svante Wold, et al. 1989. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems 6, 4 (1989), 259–272

    1989

  60. [68]

    Liwenhan Xie, Chengbo Zheng, Haijun Xia, Huamin Qu, and Chen Zhu-Tian. 2024. Waitgpt: Monitoring and steering conversational llm agent in data analysis with on-the-fly code visualization. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–14

    2024

  61. [69]

    Jiawei Xu, Zhandos Sembay, Swathi Thaker, Pamela Payne-Foster, Jake Yue Chen, and Ying Ding. 2025. Interactive Visualization of Semantic Relationships in a Biomedical Project’s Talent Knowledge Graph. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09909 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Xingyu Tan, Xiaoyang Wang, Qing Liu, Xiwei Xu, Xin Yuan, and Wenjie Zhang

  63. [71]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14211 (2024)

    Paths-over-graph: Knowledge graph empowered large language model reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14211 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Sultan Turhan and Mustafa Berk Bacaksız. 2024. Recipe Recommendation Chatbot Based on Low FODMAP Dietary Knowledge Graph. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) . IEEE, 6547–6555

    2024

  65. [73]

    Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision sciences 39, 2 (2008), 273–315

    2008

  66. [74]

    Shijie Wang, Wenqi Fan, Yue Feng, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, and Dawei Yin. 2025. Knowledge Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for LLM-based Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02226 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Lanyun Zhang, Jiani Zhan, Jingyi Yang, and Verena Wai Wan Kwok. 2023. Un- derstanding the AI-intervened User Interfaces of Online Health Consultation Platforms. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human- Computer Interaction. 1–8

    2023

  68. [76]

    Robert F Woolson. 2005. Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Encyclopedia of biostatistics 8 (2005)

    2005

  69. [77]

    Siyuan Xia, Nafisa Anzum, Semih Salihoglu, and Jian Zhao. 2021. KTabulator: Interactive ad hoc table creation using knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2021

  70. [80]

    Yao Xu, Shizhu He, Jiabei Chen, Zihao Wang, Yangqiu Song, Hanghang Tong, Guang Liu, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2024. Generate-on-graph: Treat llm as both agent and kg in incomplete knowledge graph question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14741 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [81]

    Youfu Yan, Yu Hou, Yongkang Xiao, Rui Zhang, and Qianwen Wang. 2024. Knownet: Guided health information seeking from llms via knowledge graph integration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  72. [82]

    Zhongqi Yang, Elahe Khatibi, Nitish Nagesh, Mahyar Abbasian, Iman Azimi, Ramesh Jain, and Amir M Rahmani. 2024. ChatDiet: Empowering personalized nutrition-oriented food recommender chatbots through an LLM-augmented framework. Smart Health 32 (2024), 100465

    2024

  73. [83]

    Ryan Yen and Jian Zhao. 2024. Memolet: Reifying the Reuse of User-AI Conver- sational Memories. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–22

    2024

  74. [84]

    Nur Yildirim, Hannah Richardson, Maria Teodora Wetscherek, Junaid Bajwa, Joseph Jacob, Mark Ames Pinnock, Stephen Harris, Daniel Coelho De Castro, Shruthi Bannur, Stephanie Hyland, et al. 2024. Multimodal healthcare AI: identi- fying and designing clinically relevant vision-la...

    2024

  75. [86]

    Shengchen Zhang, Zixuan Wang, Chaoran Chen, Yi Dai, Lyumanshan Ye, and Xiaohua Sun. 2021. Patterns for representing knowledge graphs to communicate situational knowledge of service robots. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2021

  76. [87]

    Xinjie Zhao, Moritz Blum, Rui Yang, Boming Yang, Luis Márquez Carpintero, Mónica Pina-Navarro, Tony Wang, Xin Li, Huitao Li, Yanran Fu, et al . 2024. AGENTiGraph: An Interactive Knowledge Graph Platform for LLM-based Chat- bots Utilizing Private Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410...

    2024 arXiv

  77. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Personalized quest and dialogue generation in role-playing games: A knowledge graph-and language model-based approach. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  78. [2024]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    Linking text and visualizations via contextual knowledge graph. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  79. [3565]

    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.278

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.