Large Language Models for Epidural Stimulation Electrode Mapping in Spinal Cord Injury
2026年9月8日 更新者：Görkem Açar、Istanbul Gelisim University
AI-Assisted Electrode Contact Configuration Mapping for Epidural Electrical Stimulation in Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models
This observational and methodological study aims to compare the performance of large language models in generating electrode contact configuration recommendations for epidural electrical stimulation in spinal cord injury.
Five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios will be presented to four large language models: ChatGPT-4o, Claude, Grok 3, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Each model will receive the same standardized prompt. The generated responses will be anonymized and evaluated independently by experts with experience in spinal cord injury rehabilitation and epidural electrical stimulation.
The responses will be assessed in five main areas: clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, consistency with current clinical guidance, and completeness of the response. Agreement between expert evaluators will also be examined.
No real patients, human participants, clinical interventions, or personal health data are included in this study. The study is designed to explore the potential and current limitations of large language models as artificial intelligence-based clinical decision-support tools in neurorehabilitation.
調査の概要
状態
積極的、募集していない
条件
研究の種類
観察的
入学 (実際)
20
連絡先と場所
このセクションには、調査を実施する担当者の連絡先の詳細と、この調査が実施されている場所に関する情報が記載されています。
研究場所
-
-
Istanbul
-
Istanbul、Istanbul、トルコ（Türkiye）、34290
- Istanbul Gelisim University
-
-
参加基準
研究者は、適格基準と呼ばれる特定の説明に適合する人を探します。これらの基準のいくつかの例は、人の一般的な健康状態または以前の治療です。
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
- 子
- 大人
- 高齢者
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
いいえ
サンプリング方法
非確率サンプル
調査対象母集団
No human study population is included.
The analytical sample consists of five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios and the responses generated for these scenarios by ChatGPT-4o, Claude, Grok 3, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Each model is evaluated under the same standardized prompting conditions.
Model outputs are anonymized and independently rated by expert evaluators for clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, consistency with clinical guidance, and response completeness.
説明
Inclusion Criteria:
- Responses generated for one of the five predefined standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios.
- Responses generated using the identical standardized prompt specified in the study protocol.
- Responses generated by one of the four prespecified large language models.
- Complete responses available for expert evaluation.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Responses generated using prompts that differ from the standardized study prompt.
- Incomplete, interrupted, or technically corrupted model outputs.
- Duplicate responses or outputs not corresponding to a predefined synthetic scenario.
- Any response generated using real patient-identifiable or personal health information.
研究計画
このセクションでは、研究がどのように設計され、研究が何を測定しているかなど、研究計画の詳細を提供します。
研究はどのように設計されていますか？
デザインの詳細
コホートと介入
グループ/コホート |
介入・治療 |
|---|---|
|
ChatGPT-4o
Responses generated by ChatGPT-4o for five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using the same standardized prompt.
The responses will be evaluated for clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, guideline consistency, and completeness.
|
The large language model receives five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using an identical standardized prompt and generates recommendations for epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration mapping.
No intervention is administered to human participants.
|
|
Claude
Responses generated by Claude for five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using the same standardized prompt.
The responses will be evaluated for clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, guideline consistency, and completeness.
|
The large language model receives five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using an identical standardized prompt and generates recommendations for epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration mapping.
No intervention is administered to human participants.
|
|
Grok 3
Responses generated by Grok 3 for five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using the same standardized prompt.
The responses will be evaluated for clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, guideline consistency, and completeness.
|
The large language model receives five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using an identical standardized prompt and generates recommendations for epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration mapping.
No intervention is administered to human participants.
|
|
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Responses generated by Grok 3 for five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using the same standardized prompt.
The responses will be evaluated for clinical accuracy, technical feasibility, safety awareness, guideline consistency, and completeness.
|
The large language model receives five standardized synthetic spinal cord injury scenarios using an identical standardized prompt and generates recommendations for epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration mapping.
No intervention is administered to human participants.
|
この研究は何を測定していますか？
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Clinical Accuracy Score of Large Language Model Responses
時間枠：At the time of expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
Clinical accuracy of the epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration recommendations generated by each large language model will be independently evaluated by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Higher scores indicate greater clinical accuracy of the generated recommendations.
|
At the time of expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Technical Feasibility Score of Large Language Model Responses
時間枠：At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
The technical feasibility of epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration recommendations generated by each large language model will be independently evaluated by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Higher scores indicate greater technical feasibility and applicability of the generated recommendations.
|
At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
|
Safety Awareness Score of Large Language Model Responses
時間枠：At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
The safety awareness demonstrated in the epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration recommendations generated by each large language model will be independently evaluated by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Higher scores indicate greater recognition and consideration of relevant safety issues.
|
At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
|
Clinical Guideline Consistency Score of Large Language Model Responses
時間枠：At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
The consistency of the generated epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration recommendations with current clinical guidance will be independently evaluated by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Higher scores indicate greater consistency with current clinical guidance and relevant evidence-based recommendations.
|
At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
|
Response Completeness Score of Large Language Model Responses
時間枠：At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
The completeness of the epidural electrical stimulation electrode contact configuration recommendations generated by each large language model will be independently evaluated by expert reviewers using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale.
Higher scores indicate more complete and comprehensive responses.
|
At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
|
協力者と研究者
ここでは、この調査に関係する人々や組織を見つけることができます。
研究記録日
これらの日付は、ClinicalTrials.gov への研究記録と要約結果の提出の進捗状況を追跡します。研究記録と報告された結果は、国立医学図書館 (NLM) によって審査され、公開 Web サイトに掲載される前に、特定の品質管理基準を満たしていることが確認されます。
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (実際)
2026年9月2日
一次修了 (推定)
2026年9月9日
研究の完了 (推定)
2026年9月9日
試験登録日
最初に提出
2026年9月8日
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
2026年9月8日
最初の投稿 (実際)
2026年9月14日
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
2026年9月14日
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
2026年9月8日
最終確認日
2026年9月1日
詳しくは
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。