ArticleJournal of gambling studies2025
Can Large Language Models Address Problem Gambling? Expert Insights from Gambling Treatment Professionals.
Article in Journal of gambling studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of artificial intelligence within the gambling field: a scoping review protocol.F1000Research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed information retrieval for humans. People are increasingly turning to general-purpose LLM-based chatbots to find answers to questions across numerous domains, including advice on sensitive topics such as mental health and addiction. In this study, we present the first inquiry into how LLMs respond to prompts related to problem gambling, specifically exploring how experienced gambling treatment professionals interpret and reflect on these responses. We used the Problem Gambling Severity Index to develop nine prompts related to different aspects of gambling behavior. These prompts were submitted to two LLMs, GPT-4o (via ChatGPT) and Llama 3.1 405b (via Meta AI), and their responses were evaluated via an online survey distributed to human experts (experienced gambling treatment professionals). Twenty-three experts participated, representing over 17,000 hours of problem gambling treatment experience. They provided their own responses to the prompts and selected their preferred (blinded) LLM response, along with contextual feedback, which was used for qualitative analysis. Llama was slightly preferred over GPT, receiving more votes for 7 out of the 9 prompts. Thematic analysis revealed that experts identified strengths and weaknesses in LLM responses, highlighting issues such as encouragement of continued gambling, overly verbose messaging, and language that could be easily misconstrued. These findings offer a novel perspective by capturing how experienced gambling treatment professionals perceive LLM responses in the context of problem gambling, providing insights to inform future efforts to align these tools with appropriate guardrails and safety standards for use in gambling harm interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41071452What 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.