ArticleBMC urology2026
The doctors of the future: the competition of ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4 omni, and Gemini 2.0 Flash in andrology.
Article in BMC urology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in medical research and as clinical decision-support tools. This study aimed to compare the accuracy and reliability of responses generated by large language models in response to andrology-related questions. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy questions concerning diagnosis, treatment, and general information were developed on the basis of the 2024 Andrology Guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU). These questions were submitted to three large language models, namely ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT-4o, and Google Gemini 2.0 Flash. The responses were independently evaluated by three senior urologists using a four-point rating scale. A total score (TS) > 9 indicated a good response, 6 ≤ TS ≤ 9 indicated a moderate response, and TS < 6 indicated a poor response. In addition, the self-correction capabilities of the models were evaluated, and changes in response accuracy after re-evaluation were analyzed.
resultsChatGPT-4o achieved the highest total scores in the diagnosis and treatment categories (p < 0.001). Google Gemini 2.0 Flash generated the longest responses but demonstrated the lowest accuracy. ChatGPT-4o also showed the greatest improvement following the self-correction process (Cohen's d = - 1.214, p < 0.01). Fleiss' kappa coefficient values ranged from 0.61 to 0.80, indicating substantial interrater agreement among the urologists.
conclusionChatGPT-4o emerged as the most reliable model for andrology-related questions, providing responses that are were highly consistent with current clinical guidelines. The self-correction capabilities of the models improved response accuracy, suggesting that error-awareness mechanisms in large language models have the potential for further refinement. Nevertheless, expert supervision remains essential for the safe implementation of AI-assisted systems in clinical practice.
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.