ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
ChatGPT's Skills in Statistical Analysis Using the Example of Allergology: Do We Have Reason for Concern?
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Applications of Large Language Models in Medical Research: From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A structured framework for effective and responsible generative artificial intelligence chatbot prompt engineering throughout the scientific process: a comprehensive guide for the health and medical researcher.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Prompt engineering for generative artificial intelligence chatbots in health research: A practical guide for traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine researchers.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- Statistical analysis using ChatGPT in medical research.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Action: Racial and Gender Disparities in Academic Radiology.Cureus · 2025Article
- ChatGPT for Univariate Statistics: Validation of AI-Assisted Data Analysis in Healthcare Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Assessing the Current Limitations of Large Language Models in Advancing Health Care Education.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Manuscript Writing: Tips and Traps.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- A Comparative Evaluation of Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) and ChatGPT-4 in Statistical Analyses.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContent generated by artificial intelligence is sometimes not truthful. To date, there have been a number of medical studies related to the validity of ChatGPT's responses; however, there is a lack of studies addressing various aspects of statistical analysis. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the answers provided by ChatGPT in relation to statistical analysis, as well as to identify recommendations to be implemented in the future in connection with the results obtained.
methodsThe study was divided into four parts and was based on the exemplary medical field of allergology. The first part consisted of asking ChatGPT 30 different questions related to statistical analysis. The next five questions included a request for ChatGPT to perform the relevant statistical analyses, and another five requested ChatGPT to indicate which statistical test should be applied to articles accepted for publication in
resultsOut of the 40 general questions asked that related to broad statistical analysis, ChatGPT did not fully answer half of them. Assumptions necessary for the application of specific statistical tests were not included. ChatGPT also gave completely divergent answers to one question about which test should be used.
conclusionThe answers provided by ChatGPT to various statistical questions may give rise to the use of inappropriate statistical tests and, consequently, the subsequent misinterpretation of the research results obtained. Questions asked in this regard need to be framed more precisely.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.