Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38871841›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2025

Can ChatGPT provide high-quality patient information on male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostate enlargement?

Angie K Puerto Nino, Valentina Garcia Perez, Silvia Secco, Cosimo De Nunzio, Riccardo Lombardo, Kari A O Tikkinen, Dean S Elterman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors.

Angie K Puerto Nino *Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. angie.puerto-nino@helsinki.fi.
Valentina Garcia Perez *Faculty of Medicine, University of the Andes, Bogota, Colombia.
Silvia SeccoDepartment of Urology, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4953-0091
Cosimo De NunzioUrology Unit, Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2190-512X
Riccardo LombardoUrology Unit, Ospedale Sant'Andrea, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2890-3159
Kari A O TikkinenFaculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Dean S EltermanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Dean.Elterman@uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-7783

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Lower Urinary Tract SymptomsPatient Education as TopicProstatic HyperplasiaGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansInternetMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38871841
PMCPMC11860216

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.