Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40587513›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Developing artificial intelligence tools for institutional review board pre-review: A pilot study on ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility.

Yasuko Fukataki, Wakako Hayashi, Naoki Nishimoto, Yoichi M Ito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prompt injection of OpenAI custom GPTs leaks informatics secrets.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yasuko FukatakiHealth Data Science, Department of Social Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8393-693X
Wakako HayashiHealth Data Science, Department of Social Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Naoki NishimotoData Science Center, Promotion Unit, Institute of Health Science Innovation for Medical Care, Hokkaido University Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Yoichi M ItoHealth Data Science, Department of Social Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This pilot study is the first phase of a broader project aimed at developing an explainable artificial intelligence (AI) tool to support the ethical evaluation of Japanese-language clinical research documents. The tool is explicitly not intended to assist document drafting. We assessed the baseline performance of generative AI-Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4 and GPT-4o-in analyzing clinical research protocols and informed consent forms (ICFs). The goal was to determine whether these models could accurately and consistently extract ethically relevant information, including the research objectives and background, research design, and participant-related risks and benefits. First, we compared the performance of GPT-4 and GPT-4o using custom agents developed via OpenAI's Custom GPT functionality (hereafter "GPTs"). Then, using GPT-4o alone, we compared outputs generated by GPTs optimized with customized Japanese prompts to those generated by standard prompts. GPT-4o achieved 80% agreement in extracting research objectives and background and 100% in extracting research design, while both models demonstrated high reproducibility across ten trials. GPTs with customized prompts produced more accurate and consistent outputs than standard prompts. This study suggests the potential utility of generative AI in pre-institutional review board (IRB) review tasks; it also provides foundational data for future validation and standardization efforts involving retrieval-augmented generation and fine-tuning. Importantly, this tool is intended not to automate ethical review but rather to support IRB decision-making. Limitations include the absence of gold standard reference data, reliance on a single evaluator, lack of convergence and inter-rater reliability analysis, and the inability of AI to substitute for in-person elements such as site visits.

Identifiers

PMID40587513
PMCPMC12208443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.