ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
How good are large language models at product risk assessment?
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can ChatGPT Reflect Professional HACCP Judgments? A Comparative Study in Hospitality Food Safety.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Algorithm Perception When Using Threat Intelligence in Vulnerability Risk Assessment.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Risks of ignoring uncertainty propagation in AI-augmented security pipelines.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- How good are large language models at product risk assessment?Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
- The TOXIN knowledge graph: supporting animal-free risk assessment of cosmetics.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Product safety professionals must assess the risks to consumers associated with the foreseeable uses and misuses of products. In this study, we investigate the utility of generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, across a number of tasks involved in the product risk assessment process. For a set of six consumer products, prompts were developed related to failure mode identification, the construction and population of a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) table, risk mitigation identification, and guidance to product designers, users, and regulators. These prompts were input into ChatGPT and the outputs were recorded. A survey was administered to product safety professionals to ascertain the quality of the outputs. We found that ChatGPT generally performed better at divergent thinking tasks such as brainstorming potential failure modes and risk mitigations. However, there were errors and inconsistencies in some of the results, and the guidance provided was perceived as overly generic, occasionally outlandish, and not reflective of the depth of knowledge held by a subject matter expert. When tested against a sample of other LLMs, similar patterns in strengths and weaknesses were demonstrated. Despite these challenges, a role for LLMs may still exist in product risk assessment to assist in ideation, while experts may shift their focus to critical review of AI-generated content.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.