Abstract
This article evaluates the ChatGPT decision support system’s utility for creating policies related to concussion and repetitive brain trauma associated with neurodegenerative disease risk. It is generally stable and fast. prompt/response pairs (n=259) were examined returning: six prompt response pairs that regenerated (2.31%); one Incorrect Answer; (.38%) one fragment (.38%). Its accuracy, validity, opacity, informational latency and vulnerability to manipulation limits its utility. ChatGPT’s data can be both out-of-date and incomplete which limits its utility use to subject matter experts analyzing expert statements. ChatGPT’s performance is affected by prompts involving stakeholder bias and litigation management, such as race. Nonetheless, ChatGPT demonstrated its ability to respond in both American and British/Australian English with ease. Overall, this study suggests that ChatGPT has limitations that need to be addressed before it can be widely used in decision-making related to concussion and repetitive brain trauma policies.
Competing Interest Statement
The author previously advised the Morey Objectors?Faneca Objectors on economic and health matters in the National Football League Players Concussion Injury Litigation, Case No. 12-md-02323-AB, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania between August 2013 and April 2015.
Funding Statement
This study received no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
xI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No
