ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Visible AI assistant outputs in psychosocial risk management: an OHP/OHS-grounded benchmark for governance and responsible use.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study introduces and applies an occupational health psychology (OHP) and occupational health and safety (OHS)-grounded benchmark for evaluating visible artificial intelligence (AI) assistant outputs in psychosocial risk management. Methods: Five user-facing general-purpose AI assistant products were evaluated across four locked psychosocial-risk scenarios, three repeated runs, and four fixed tasks per conversation, yielding 60 conversations and 240 task-level outputs. Outputs were scored on risk identification and differentiation, multi-level organizational framing, preventive organizational actionability, and professional boundedness and verification. A blind second-rater layer and focused adjudication were used to test profile stability and resolve profile-changing disagreements. Results: Exact agreement was observed in 153 of 240 task rows (63.7%), while 239 rows (99.6%) were exact or within one point. Profile mismatches were concentrated in Gemini and Le Chat/Mistral rather than distributed across scenarios or runs. Under the final consensus structure, 36 conversations were classified as Structurally Usable Support, 23 as Mixed/Partially Usable Support, and 1 as Problematic Support. Conclusion: The main contribution is not a generic ranking of assistant products, but a domain-specific evaluation logic for psychosocial risk management, together with a reviewer-facing process model and derived governance and reporting guides for more transparent and responsible organizational use.
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.