Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42106536›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

RESPECT: a conversational AI system for informed consent with accuracy, safety, and stakeholder-centered evaluation.

Salvatore Giorgi, Katie Ryan, Jane Paik Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Katie RyanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1437-3126
Jane Paik KimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. janepkim@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-9822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent (IC) is a cornerstone of clinical research. IC typically includes both written materials and, particularly in clinical trials, an oral discussion between the investigator and participant. In practice, both components tend to be templated and standardized, limiting opportunities for meaningful, individualized dialog. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer possibilities for enhancing the accessibility of IC, realizing this potential requires ensuring accurate, safe, and appropriate responses before research deployment. We developed RESPECT (RESearch Participant Engagement and Consent Tool), an LLM consent assistant utilizing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to ground responses in IC source documents. We evaluated accuracy through leave-one-out cross-validation and question rephrasing analysis, demonstrating high accuracy in information retrieval for the RAG system. We introduced a novel safety evaluation framework measuring two dimensions: appropriate refusal (how often the system refuses questions it should not answer) and utility (how often it answers questions it should answer). This approach generalizes simple refusal rates by plotting a Refusal-Utility Curve (RUC) analogous to receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-AUC curves. RESPECT demonstrated significantly higher appropriate refusal rates compared to GPT-4, but at the cost of reduced utility in answering legitimate questions. We conducted stakeholder evaluations with research staff to assess accuracy, comprehensiveness, and satisfaction. RESPECT represents the first RAG-based LLM consent assistance tool for research contexts, demonstrating improved safety through higher appropriate refusal rates. The novel RUC evaluation framework provides researchers with a tool for assessing safety-utility tradeoffs in LLM systems, enabling informed decisions about deploying such tools in healthcare research settings.

Identifiers

PMID42106536
PMCPMC13377031

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.