ArticleFamily practice2025
ChatGPT's performance in sample size estimation: a preliminary study on the capabilities of artificial intelligence.
Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can large language models accurately compute descriptive statistics from structured datasets? A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT-5, Claude, and DeepSeek for statistical analysis in medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence tools, including large language models such as ChatGPT, are increasingly integrated into clinical and primary care research. However, their ability to assist with specialized statistical tasks, such as sample size estimation, remains largely unexplored.
methodsWe evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o in estimating sample sizes across 24 standard statistical scenarios. Examples were selected from a statistical textbook and an educational website, covering basic methods such as estimating means, proportions, and correlations. Each example was tested twice per model. Models were accessed through the ChatGPT web interface, with a new independent chat session initiated for each round. Accuracy was assessed using mean and median absolute percentage error compared with validated reference values. Reproducibility was assessed using symmetric mean and median absolute percentage error between rounds. Comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
resultsFor ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o, absolute percentage errors ranged from 0% to 15.2% (except one case: 26.3%) and 0% to 14.3%, respectively, with most examples showing errors below 5%. ChatGPT-4o showed better accuracy than ChatGPT-4.0 (mean absolute percentage error: 3.1% vs. 4.1% in round#1, P-value = .01; 2.8% vs. 5.1% in round#2, P-value =.02) and lower symmetric mean absolute percentage error (0.8% vs. 2.5%), though not significant (P-value = .18).
conclusionsChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o provided reasonably accurate sample size estimates across standard scenarios, with good reproducibility. However, inconsistencies were observed, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation and expert validation. Further research should assess performance in more complex contexts and across a broader range of AI models.
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.