ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
Can large language models help predict results from a complex behavioural science study?
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the potential of large language models in nutrition behavior prediction: evidence from college students.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Can large language models help predict results from a complex behavioural science study?Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We tested whether large language models (LLMs) can help predict results from a complex behavioural science experiment. In study 1, we investigated the performance of the widely used LLMs GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in forecasting the empirical findings of a large-scale experimental study of emotions, gender, and social perceptions. We found that GPT-4, but not GPT-3.5, matched the performance of a cohort of 119 human experts, with correlations of 0.89 (GPT-4), 0.07 (GPT-3.5) and 0.87 (human experts) between aggregated forecasts and realized effect sizes. In study 2, providing participants from a university subject pool the opportunity to query a GPT-4 powered chatbot significantly increased the accuracy of their forecasts. Results indicate promise for artificial intelligence (AI) to help anticipate-at scale and minimal cost-which claims about human behaviour will find empirical support and which ones will not. Our discussion focuses on avenues for human-AI collaboration in science.
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.