Psychosocial Risk FactorsPsyChAtNCT07862855
PSYCHosocial Risk Factors of AThletes, Evaluation of a Questionnaire Constructed by CHATGPT
An observational study of Psychosocial Risk Factors, run by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
The goal of this observational study was to assess themes generated by ChatGPT to help organize psychosocial risk factors in professional sport. These factors relate to aspects of athletes' working conditions and professional relationships that may affect their health. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Psychosocial Risk Factors
- How many people
- 42 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 27 Dec 2024to 26 Feb 2025
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Academic experts not working in professional sports clubs and sport professionals working within professional sports clubs. Academic experts included university professors and senior lecturers, medical doctors, nurses, osteopaths, and academic engineers. Sport professionals included head directors, coaching staff, sports physicians, sport psychologists, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, sport/data scientists, and scouts. A total of 83 experts (54 academic experts and 29 sport professionals) were contacted through individual email invitations.
Who may be able to join
- Membership in either of the following two categories :
- Academic experts not working in professional sports clubs: university professors, university senior lecturers, medical doctors, nurses, osteopaths, or academic engineers in the fields described in the study.
- Sport professionals working within professional sports clubs: head directors, coaching staff, sports physicians, sport psychologists, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, sport/data scientists, or scouts.
Who cannot join
- None.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The goal of this observational study was to assess themes generated by ChatGPT to help organize psychosocial risk factors in professional sport. These factors relate to aspects of athletes' working conditions and professional relationships that may affect their health. Academic experts and sport professionals evaluated the proposed themes and sub-themes. The main questions were :
- How relevant, clearly worded, and comprehensive did experts find the proposed themes?
- How relevant and clearly worded did experts find the proposed sub-themes?
- Did experts' evaluations differ according to their characteristics? Participants completed an online questionnaire. They rated the proposals on scales from 0 to 10 and could provide written comments or suggest changes.
- Conditions
- Psychosocial Risk Factors
- Keywords
- Psychosocial risk factors, Mental health, Occupational health, Professional athletes, Artificial intelligence
- Medical subject headings
- Psychological Well-Being
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Expert panel | Academic experts and sport professionals who completed a one-time online questionnaire evaluating AI-generated themes and sub-themes on psychosocial risk factors in professional athletes. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Expert ratings of AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes
Academic experts and sport professionals evaluated each of eight AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes using a study-specific online questionnaire. Each theme was rated separately for relevance, quality of formulation, and exhaustiveness using numerical rating scales from 0 to 10. For relevance, 0 indicated "not relevant at all" and 10 "highly relevant". For quality of formulation, 0 indicated "incomprehensible" and 10 "fully comprehensible". For exhaustiveness, 0 indicated "not complete at all" and 10 "fully complete". Higher scores indicated more favorable evaluations of the corresponding dimension. Scores were summarized separately for each theme and dimension.
Measured: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Secondary outcomes (3)
Association between expert characteristics and theme ratings.
Relevance of each of eight AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes was assessed using a study-specific online questionnaire on a numerical rating scale from 0 ("not relevant at all") to 10 ("highly relevant"). Higher scores indicated greater perceived relevance. Associations between relevance scores and expert characteristics (age, sex, professional role, and highest competitive sport level achieved) were examined using separate multiple linear regression models for each theme. The outcome was the relevance score, expressed in scale points.
Measured: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Association between expert characteristics and theme formulation scores.
Quality of formulation of each of eight AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes was assessed using a study-specific online questionnaire on a numerical rating scale from 0 ("incomprehensible") to 10 ("fully comprehensible"). Higher scores indicated greater comprehensibility. Associations between formulation scores and expert characteristics (age, sex, professional role, and highest competitive sport level achieved) were examined using multiple linear regression models for each theme. The outcome was the formulation score, expressed in scale points.
Measured: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Association between expert characteristics and theme exhaustiveness scores.
Exhaustiveness of each of eight AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes was assessed using a study-specific online questionnaire on a numerical rating scale from 0 ("not complete at all") to 10 ("fully complete"). Higher scores indicated greater perceived completeness. Associations between exhaustiveness scores and expert characteristics (age, sex, professional role, and highest competitive sport level achieved) were examined using multiple linear regression models for each theme. The outcome was the exhaustiveness score, expressed in scale points.
Measured: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Oct 2026
- Study start27 Dec 2024
- Primary completion26 Feb 2025
- Study completion26 Feb 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Psychosocial Risk FactorsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Hospital, Clermont-FerrandThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- 42 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Frédéric Dutheil, Principal investigator, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07862855
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2025_DUTHEIL (PsyChAt)
- Acronym
- PsyChAt
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 24 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 7 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: There is no plan to share individual participant data.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- PSYCHosocial Risk Factors of AThletes, Evaluation of a Questionnaire Constructed by CHATGPT
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07862855
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PsyChAt / 2025_DUTHEIL (PsyChAt)
- Conditions
- Psychosocial Risk Factors
- Keywords
- Psychosocial risk factors, Mental health, Occupational health, Professional athletes, Artificial intelligence
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 42 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Clermont-FerrandUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 27 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 26 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 26 Feb 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Oct 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.
The goal of this observational study was to assess themes generated by ChatGPT to help organize psychosocial risk factors in professional sport. These factors relate to aspects of athletes' working conditions and professional relationships that may affect their health. Academic experts and sport professionals evaluated the proposed themes and sub-themes. The main questions were :
- How relevant, clearly worded, and comprehensive did experts find the proposed themes?
- How relevant and clearly worded did experts find the proposed sub-themes?
- Did experts' evaluations differ according to their characteristics? Participants completed an online questionnaire. They rated the proposals on scales from 0 to 10 and could provide written comments or suggest changes.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Expert panel | – | –Academic experts and sport professionals who completed a one-time online questionnaire evaluating AI-generated themes and sub-themes on psychosocial risk factors in professional athletes. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Academic experts not working in professional sports clubs and sport professionals working within professional sports clubs. Academic experts included university professors and senior lecturers, medical doctors, nurses, osteopaths, and academic engineers. Sport professionals included head directors, coaching staff, sports physicians, sport psychologists, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, sport/data scientists, and scouts. A total of 83 experts (54 academic experts and 29 sport professionals) were contacted through individual email invitations.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Membership in either of the following two categories :
- Academic experts not working in professional sports clubs: university professors, university senior lecturers, medical doctors, nurses, osteopaths, or academic engineers in the fields described in the study.
- Sport professionals working within professional sports clubs: head directors, coaching staff, sports physicians, sport psychologists, physiotherapists, strength and conditioning coaches, sport/data scientists, or scouts.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Expert ratings of AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes
Time frame: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Academic experts and sport professionals evaluated each of eight AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes using a study-specific online questionnaire. Each theme was rated separately for relevance, quality of formulation, and exhaustiveness using numerical rating scales from 0 to 10. For relevance, 0 indicated "not relevant at all" and 10 "highly relevant". For quality of formulation, 0 indicated "incomprehensible" and 10 "fully comprehensible". For exhaustiveness, 0 indicated "not complete at all" and 10 "fully complete". Higher scores indicated more favorable evaluations of the corresponding dimension. Scores were summarized separately for each theme and dimension.
3 secondary outcomes
Association between expert characteristics and theme ratings.
Time frame: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Association between expert characteristics and theme formulation scores.
Time frame: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Association between expert characteristics and theme exhaustiveness scores.
Time frame: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. There is no plan to share individual participant data.
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.
Frédéric Dutheil principal investigator
University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand
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 Psychosocial Risk Factors, run by University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand at 1 site in France.
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 3 inclusion and 1 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Oct 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 France. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Expert ratings of AI-generated psychosocial risk factor themes (time frame: At baseline (single assessment; no follow-up).). 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 7 Oct 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.