ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Assessment of the reliability and usability of ChatGPT in response to spinal cord injury questions.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative study of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in spinal cord injury patient education: Can artificial intelligence "speak" spinal cord injury?The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Behavior recognition and assessment of spinal dysfunction based on an attention mechanism.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Large Language Model Responses Versus Internet Searches for Common Questions About Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy: Exploratory Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of domain-specific vs general purpose GPT models for SCI-related gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and pulmonary complications.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in rehabilitation medicine: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- ChatGPT as a Source for Patient Information on Patellofemoral Surgery-A Comparative Study Amongst Laymen, Doctors, and Experts.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Can Large Language Models Answer Questions about Spinal Cord Injury? Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities-A Narrative Review.Neurotrauma reportsReview
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
objectiveThe use of artificial intelligence chatbots to obtain information about patients' diseases is increasing. This study aimed to determine the reliability and usability of ChatGPT for spinal cord injury-related questions.
methodsThree raters simultaneously evaluated a total of 47 questions on a 7-point Likert scale for reliability and usability, based on the three most frequently searched keywords in Google Trends ('general information', 'complications' and 'treatment').
resultsInter-rater Cronbach α scores indicated substantial agreement for both reliability and usability scores (α between 0.558 and 0.839, and α between 0.373 and 0.772, respectively). The highest mean reliability score was for 'complications' (mean 5.38). The lowest average was for the 'general information' section (mean 4.20). The 'treatment' had the highest mean scores for the usability (mean 5.87) and the lowest mean value was recorded in the 'general information' section (mean 4.80).
conclusionThe answers given by ChatGPT to questions related to spinal cord injury were reliable and useful. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that ChatGPT may provide incorrect or incomplete information, especially in the 'general information' section, which may mislead patients and their relatives.
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.