Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42539402›Full record

ReviewNeurotrauma reports

Can Large Language Models Answer Questions about Spinal Cord Injury? Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities-A Narrative Review.

Rahul K Desai, Simran Saggu, Masha Panahi, Kealey L Nguyen, Parisa Razavi Yeganeh, Ornell Douglas, Marzieh Mussavi Rizi, Nader Fallah, John Chernesky, Vanessa K Noonan and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurotrauma reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Rahul K DesaiSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Simran SagguSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Masha PanahiSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Kealey L NguyenSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Parisa Razavi YeganehSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Ornell DouglasSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Marzieh Mussavi RiziSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Nader FallahPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
John CherneskyPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Vanessa K NoonanPraxis Spinal Cord Institute, Vancouver, Canada.
Abel Torres-EspínSchool of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9787-8738

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Access to high-quality health information (HI) is critical for everyone involved in the research and management of medical conditions such as spinal cord injury (SCI). Recently, the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) through AI-based chatbots like ChatGPT has become increasingly integral to how people seek and consume HI. While LLMs have been evaluated in various clinical and health domains, there remains a notable gap in the literature regarding their use for SCI-specific questions. We conducted a narrative synthesis to identify the opportunities, challenges, and risks of using LLMs in SCI-related HI tasks, and to provide future direction for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to better understand this fast-evolving landscape. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar up to December 2025 and identified nine primary articles that investigated LLMs in the context of SCI-related queries. Our synthesis of the literature revealed that although there are promising results, these should be taken with caution due to mixed evidence for LLM's capability to effectively answer SCI-related questions. In addition, the LLM outputs were challenging to read, typically requiring an education level equivalent to a college-level student (grades 14-15) to be adequately understood. We recognize that LLMs can serve as valuable tools for accessing HI in SCI. However, LLMs can also pose significant risks, including the spread of mis- or dis-information that may be inaccurate or even dangerous, which can mislead individuals and caregivers, potentially resulting in detrimental health outcomes. Finally, methodological rigour needs to be improved to produce higher levels of evidence.

Indexed as

health informationhealth literacylarge language modelslived experiencespinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID42539402
PMCPMC13422595

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.