ArticleScandinavian journal of pain2024
Could generative artificial intelligence replace fieldwork in pain research?
Article in Scandinavian journal of pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) models offer potential assistance in pain research data acquisition, yet concerns persist regarding data accuracy and reliability. In a comparative study, we evaluated open generative AI models' capacity to acquire data on acute pain in rock climbers comparable to field research.
methodsFifty-two rock climbers (33 m/19 f; age 29.0 [24.0-35.75] years) were asked to report pain location and intensity during a single climbing session. Five generative pretrained transformer models were tasked with responses to the same questions.
resultsClimbers identified the back of the forearm (19.2%) and toes (17.3%) as primary pain sites, with reported median pain intensity at 4 [3-5] and median maximum pain intensity at 7 [5-8]. Conversely, AI models yielded divergent findings, indicating fingers, hands, shoulders, legs, and feet as primary pain localizations with average and maximum pain intensity ranging from 3 to 4.4 and 5 to 10, respectively. Only two AI models provided references that were untraceable in PubMed and Google searches.
conclusionOur findings reveal that, currently, open generative AI models cannot match the quality of field-collected data on acute pain in rock climbers. Moreover, the models generated nonexistent references, raising concerns about their reliability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38452184What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.