Spinal Cord InjuryNCT07817238
Large Language Models for Epidural Stimulation Electrode Mapping in Spinal Cord Injury
An observational study of Spinal Cord Injury, run by Istanbul Gelisim University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Spinal Cord Injury
- What is being tested?
- ChatGPT-4o Large Language Model, Claude Large Language Model and Grok 3 Large Language Model
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 2 Sep 2026to 9 Sep 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: 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.
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Istanbul Gelisim University
Istanbul, Istanbul, 34290
About this study
Official title: 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.
Read more
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.
- Conditions
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Being tested
- ChatGPT-4o Large Language Model, Claude Large Language Model, Grok 3 Large Language Model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Large Language Model
- Medical subject headings
- Spinal Cord Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ChatGPT-4o Large Language ModelOther
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 Large Language ModelOther
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 Large Language ModelOther
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 Large Language ModelOther
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 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. Receives: Other: ChatGPT-4o Large Language Model | |
| 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. Receives: Other: Claude Large Language Model | |
| 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. Receives: Other: Grok 3 Large Language Model | |
| 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. Receives: Other: Gemini 2.5 Pro Large Language Model |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Clinical Accuracy Score of Large Language Model Responses
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.
Measured: At the time of expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Secondary outcomes (4)
Technical Feasibility Score of Large Language Model Responses
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.
Measured: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Safety Awareness Score of Large Language Model Responses
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.
Measured: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Clinical Guideline Consistency Score of Large Language Model Responses
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.
Measured: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Response Completeness Score of Large Language Model Responses
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.
Measured: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Sep 2026
- Study start2 Sep 2026
- Primary completion9 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion9 Sep 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Spinal Cord InjuryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Istanbul Gelisim University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Görkem Açar, Istanbul Gelisim University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07817238
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EES-LLM-2026-01
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 8 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 14 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- AI-Assisted Electrode Contact Configuration Mapping for Epidural Electrical Stimulation in Spinal Cord Injury: A Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07817238
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EES-LLM-2026-01
- Conditions
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Istanbul Gelisim UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 2 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 9 Sep 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT-4o | – | Other: ChatGPT-4o Large Language ModelResponses 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. |
| Claude | – | Other: Claude Large Language ModelResponses 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. |
| Grok 3 | – | Other: Grok 3 Large Language ModelResponses 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. |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | – | Other: Gemini 2.5 Pro Large Language ModelResponses 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. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- 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.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT-4o Large Language ModelThe 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. | Other | ChatGPT-4o |
| Claude Large Language ModelThe 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. | Other | Claude |
| Grok 3 Large Language ModelThe 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. | Other | Grok 3 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro Large Language ModelThe 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. | Other | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
Primary outcome
Clinical Accuracy Score of Large Language Model Responses
Time frame: 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.
4 secondary outcomes
Technical Feasibility Score of Large Language Model Responses
Time frame: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Safety Awareness Score of Large Language Model Responses
Time frame: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Clinical Guideline Consistency Score of Large Language Model Responses
Time frame: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Response Completeness Score of Large Language Model Responses
Time frame: At expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Sep 2026.
Related trials for Spinal Cord Injury
Recruiting
Efficacy of rTMS Treatment After Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injuries, Myelopathy
Enrolling by invitation
NeuroSuitUp: Neurorehabilitation Through Synergistic Man-machine Interfaces
Spinal Cord Injuries
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Recovery and Safety After Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation in People With Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injury
RecruitingObservational study
Rare Disease Patient Registry & Natural History Study - Coordination of Rare Diseases at Sanford
Rare Disorders, Undiagnosed Disorders
RecruitingPhase 2
Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy as an Additional Treatment for Spasticity Secondary to Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injury, Spasticity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Spinal Cord Injury, run by Istanbul Gelisim University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Clinical Accuracy Score of Large Language Model Responses (time frame: At the time of expert evaluation, within 1 week after study initiation). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Sep 2026.