ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025
Can ChatGPT provide high-quality patient information on male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement?
Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unveiling the Potential of Large Language Models in Transforming Chronic Disease Management: Mixed Methods Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Quality and Readability Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Information Related to Prostate Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study of ChatGPT and DeepSeek.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Development of a ChatGPT-based assistant in multidisciplinary team discussions in oncological urology: the UroMDT Advisor study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Males with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: An Up-to-Date UPOINTS-Based Narrative Mapping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Accuracy, readability, and understandability of EAU guidelines bot for testicular cancer.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Treatment Regret in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Longitudinal Analysis of the Usefulness, Readability, Consistency, and Capacity of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses Regarding the Reality of Chronic Pain in Children.Paediatric & neonatal pain · 2026Article
- Does the Quality and Readability of Information Related to Varicocele Obtained from ChatGPT 4.0 Remain Consistent Across Different Models of Inquiry?The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Tackling the progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia/benign prostatic obstruction progression: Deobstructing within the "window of curability" (a hypothesis-generating review).Current urology · 2025Article
- Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) in Urogynecological Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Peri-Operative Outcomes after Prostatic Urethral Lift with Emphasis on Urodynamic Changes, Symptom Improvement and Sexual Function.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT has recently emerged as a novel resource for patients' disease-specific inquiries. There is, however, limited evidence assessing the quality of the information. We evaluated the accuracy and quality of the ChatGPT's responses on male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostate enlargement (BPE) when compared to two reference resources.
methodsUsing patient information websites from the European Association of Urology and the American Urological Association as reference material, we formulated 88 BPE-centric questions for ChatGPT 4.0+. Independently and in duplicate, we compared the ChatGPT's responses and the reference material, calculating accuracy through F1 score, precision, and recall metrics. We used a 5-point Likert scale for quality rating. We evaluated examiner agreement using the interclass correlation coefficient and assessed the difference in the quality scores with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsChatGPT addressed all (88/88) LUTS/BPE-related questions. For the 88 questions, the recorded F1 score was 0.79 (range: 0-1), precision 0.66 (range: 0-1), recall 0.97 (range: 0-1), and the quality score had a median of 4 (range = 1-5). Examiners had a good level of agreement (ICC = 0.86). We found no statistically significant difference between the scores given by the examiners and the overall quality of the responses (p = 0.72). DISCUSSION: ChatGPT demostrated a potential utility in educating patients about BPE/LUTS, its prognosis, and treatment that helps in the decision-making process. One must exercise prudence when recommending this as the sole information outlet. Additional studies are needed to completely understand the full extent of AI's efficacy in delivering patient education in urology.
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.