Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38547497›Full record

ArticleJournal of global health2024

Evaluating ChatGPT-4.0's data analytic proficiency in epidemiological studies: A comparative analysis with SAS, SPSS, and R.

Yeen Huang, Ruipeng Wu, Juntao He, Yingping Xiang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Statistical analysis using ChatGPT in medical research.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yeen HuangSchool of Public Health and Emergency Management, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Ruipeng WuKey Laboratory for Molecular Genetic Mechanisms and Intervention Research, On High Altitude Disease of Tibet Autonomous Region, School of Medicine, Xizang Minzu University, Xianyang, Xizang, China.
Juntao HePhysical and Chemical Testing Institute, Shenzhen Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Yingping XiangOccupational Hazard Assessment Institute, Shenzhen Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Shenzhen Occupational Disease Prevention Hospital · CNSoutheast University · CNSouthern University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchData ScienceEpidemiologic StudiesHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID38547497
PMCPMC10978058
OpenAlexW4393250973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.