ArticleJournal of global health2024
Evaluating ChatGPT-4.0's data analytic proficiency in epidemiological studies: A comparative analysis with SAS, SPSS, and R.
Article in Journal of global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pilot evaluation of ChatGPT-4o-assisted hypothesis generation for exploring potential links between fungal biology and cervical cancer.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Article
- Article
- Large language models are comparable with commonly used statistical software: A validation of GPT 5.1 for frequentist meta-analysis in orthopaedics.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Statistical Consistency in Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Computations: A Comparison of SPSS 31.0 and GPT-5.5.Cureus · 2026Article
- Applications of Large Language Models in Medical Research: From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- StatLLM: A Dataset for Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models in Statistical Analysis.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Can AI write your code? A case study of chatgpt's statistical coding capabilities for quantitative research.Health economics review · 2026Article
- 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
- Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Accuracy of artificial intelligence in meta-analysis: A comparative study of ChatGPT 4.0 and traditional methods in data synthesis.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Using Artificial Intelligence in Clerkship Learner Assessment: A CERA Study.Family medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- DeepSeek's impact on thoracic surgeons' work patterns-past, present and future.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
- Large Language Models in Medicine: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Codeless Development of a Customized SMILE Nomogram Using a Large Language Model: A Practical Framework for Clinicians.Journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: OpenAI's Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4.0 (ChatGPT-4), an emerging artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language model (LLM), has been receiving increasing attention from the medical research community for its innovative 'Data Analyst' feature. We aimed to compare the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 against traditional biostatistical software (i.e. SAS, SPSS, R) in statistically analysing epidemiological research data. Methods: We used a data set from the China Health and Nutrition Survey, comprising 9317 participants and 29 variables (e.g. gender, age, educational level, marital status, income, occupation, weekly working hours, survival status). Two researchers independently evaluated the data analysis capabilities of GPT-4's 'Data Analyst' feature against SAS, SPSS, and R across three commonly used epidemiological analysis methods: Descriptive statistics, intergroup analysis, and correlation analysis. We used an internally developed evaluation scale to assess and compare the consistency of results, analytical efficiency of coding or operations, user-friendliness, and overall performance between ChatGPT-4, SAS, SPSS, and R. Results: In descriptive statistics, ChatGPT-4 showed high consistency of results, greater analytical efficiency of code or operations, and more intuitive user-friendliness compared to SAS, SPSS, and R. In intergroup comparisons and correlational analyses, despite minor discrepancies in statistical outcomes for certain analysis tasks with SAS, SPSS, and R, ChatGPT-4 maintained high analytical efficiency and exceptional user-friendliness. Thus, employing ChatGPT-4 can significantly lower the operational threshold for conducting epidemiological data analysis while maintaining consistency with traditional biostatistical software's outcome, requiring only specific, clear analysis instructions without any additional operations or code writing. Conclusions: We found ChatGPT-4 to be a powerful auxiliary tool for statistical analysis in epidemiological research. However, it showed limitations in result consistency and in applying more advanced statistical methods. Therefore, we advocate for the use of ChatGPT-4 in supporting researchers with intermediate experience in data analysis. With AI technologies like LLMs advancing rapidly, their integration with data analysis platforms promises to lower operational barriers, thereby enabling researchers to dedicate greater focus to the nuanced interpretation of analysis results. This development is likely to significantly advance epidemiological and medical research.
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.