ReviewNeurotrauma reports
Can Large Language Models Answer Questions about Spinal Cord Injury? Risks, Challenges, and Opportunities-A Narrative Review.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.