ArticleBiology of sport2026
More details, less variability? A crossover design study on the impact of information granularity on ChatGPT's training program stability.
Article in Biology of sport, 2026. 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.
- Physiological relevance and generation-level stability of artificial intelligence-generated race-day warm-up and cool-down plans for sprint swimming: an expert-rated comparison of four large language models.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of ChatGPT versions in training program design: scientific approach, accuracy, and practical applicability.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate how varying levels of information granularity affect the output variability and multidimensional quality - including Personality, Effectiveness, Safety, and Feasibility - of ChatGPT-generated training programs. A crossover design was used to compare simple and detailed input prompts, with each prompt input into GPT-4 (accessed via ChatGPT) four times to generate eight training programs. The training programs were anonymized by the research team and subsequently evaluated in a blinded manner by 11 experts (mean age = 35.4 years, average of 18.1 years of practical experience in the field of sport and exercise science). Output variability was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV%), and quality ratings were based on a custom 15-item scale covering Personality, Effectiveness, Safety, and Feasibility. Differences in expert ratings across training programs were examined using repeated-measures ANOVA, with Friedman tests applied as sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results. Training programs generated from detailed input prompts consistently received higher expert ratings across all dimensions. CV% was generally lower under the detailed input prompts, indicating more stable outputs. Significant main effects of information granularity were found in Personality, Safety, Feasibility, and overall scores (all
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.