ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the utility of ChatGPT in addressing conceptual and non-conceptual questions related to urodynamic quality control and trace analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the applicability of ChatGPT, in answering conceptual and non-conceptual questions related to urodynamic quality control, including trace analysis and report interpretation. Utilizing a structured questioning approach, the study employs ChatGPT3.5 and ChatGPT4.0. Questions are mainly divided into conceptual questions and non-conceptual questions related to urodynamic quality control, and trace analysis. Evaluation criteria include alignment with the "Good Urodynamic Practice" guideline and literature. ChatGPT excels in delivering hierarchical responses to conceptual questions, providing comprehensive insights in a structured format. Challenges arise in offering specific references to published literature, with a 50% accuracy rate in 10 basic conceptual questions. For non-conceptual urodynamic quality control questions, ChatGPT achieves a 50% accuracy rate, accurately addressing various aspects. However, in both cases, we found no statistically significant difference in accuracy rate between conceptual questions and non-conceptual questions. However, challenges persist when questions are linked to recent literature, leading to misunderstandings and inaccurate responses. Regarding urodynamics trace interpretation, ChatGPT states its inability to directly analyze images, emphasizing reliance on qualified healthcare professionals for detailed clinical analysis. This study preliminarily demonstrates ChatGPT's limited performance in answering conceptual and non-conceptual questions related to urodynamic quality control, without finding significant differences between the two kinds of questions. Additionally, ChatGPT's capability to process image data for urodynamic trace analysis is non-existent. The study suggests that ChatGPT only has the potential to serve as an "electronic dictionary" to aid urodynamic operators, but it should be noted that this study cannot prove ChatGPT's ability to change the overall quality of urodynamic examinations.
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.