ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Analyzing the performance of ChatGPT in answering inquiries about cervical cancer.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety-Oriented Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Risk-Based Management of Abnormal Cervical Screening Results: Scenario-Based Benchmark Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Supporting patient understanding of cervical and ovarian cancer: how well does AI perform?Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Reliability of ChatGPT in Answering Patient Questions About Lung Cancer and Its Surgery: An Expert Panel Evaluation by Thoracic Surgeons.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Assessing the Accuracy of Large Language Models on European Guidelines for Cervical Cancer: An In Silico Benchmarking Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of AI language models in answering pregnancy-related questions assessed by obstetrics specialists.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation and comparison of large language model responses to patient questions after diagnosis of high-risk human papillomavirus infection: an expert-rated digital patient education study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Comparison of the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT-4o and Gemini in answering HIV-related questions.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT Provide Patient-Friendly and Reliable Information on Cervical Cancer Screening? A Study of ChatGPT-Generated Information in Polish.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Reliability of ChatGPT to Provide Guidance on Recombinant Zoster Vaccination for Patients With Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.Journal of clinical rheumatology : practical reports on rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases · 2025Article
- Analyzing the performance of ChatGPT in answering inquiries about cervical cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Accuracy of AI chatbots in answering frequently asked questions on cervical cancer.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Comparative assessment of ChatGPT and Gemini answers to common chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questions: An expert panel evaluation by pulmonologists.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the knowledge of ChatGPT about cervical cancer (CC).
methodsOfficial websites of professional health institutes, and websites created by patients and charities underwent strict screening. Using CC-related keywords, common inquiries by the public and comments about CC were searched in social media applications with these data, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) was prepared. When preparing question about CC, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and European Society of Pathology (ESP) guidelines were used. The answers given by ChatGPT were scored according to the Global Quality Score (GQS).
resultsWhen all ChatGPT answers to FAQs about CC were evaluated with regard to GQS, 68 ChatGPT answers were classified as score 5, and none of ChatGPT answers for FAQs were scored as 2 or 1. Moreover, ChatGPT answered 33 of 53 (62.3%) CC-related questions based on ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP guidelines with completely accurate and satisfactory responses (GQS 5). In addition, eight answers (15.1%), seven answers (13.2%), four answers (7.5%), and one answer (1.9%) were categorized as GQS 4, GQS 3, GQS 2, and GQS 1, respectively. The reproducibility rate of ChatGPT answers about CC-related FAQs and responses about those guideline-based questions was 93.2% and 88.7%, respectively.
conclusionChatGPT had an accurate and satisfactory response rate for FAQs about CC with regards to GQS. However, the accuracy and quality of ChatGPT answers significantly decreased for questions based on guidelines.
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.