ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Comparative analysis of automatic gender detection from names: evaluating the stability and performance of ChatGPT
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of name-to-gender inference: comparison between Gender API, NamSor, and genderize.io in a multicultural global dataset.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Trends in Women Authoring Editorials in Cardiothoracic Surgery Journals.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Transorbital approach: a bibliometric analysis from 1948 to 2024.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluation of Three Large Language Models' Response Performances to Inquiries Regarding Post-Abortion Care in the Context of Chinese Language: A Comparative Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gender classification from names is crucial for uncovering a myriad of gender-related research questions. Traditionally, this has been automatically computed by gender detection tools (GDTs), which now face new industry players in the form of conversational bots like ChatGPT. This paper statistically tests the stability and performance of ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo and ChatGPT 4o for gender detection. It also compares two of the most used GDTs (Namsor and Gender-API) with ChatGPT using a dataset of 5,779 records compiled from previous studies for the most challenging variant, which is the gender inference from full name without providing any additional information. Results statistically show that ChatGPT is very stable presenting low standard deviation and tight confidence intervals for the same input, while it presents small differences in performance when prompt changes. ChatGPT slightly outperforms the other tools with an overall accuracy over 96%, although the difference is around 3% with both GDTs. When the probability returned by GDTs is factored in, differences get narrower and comparable in terms of inter-coder reliability and error coded. ChatGPT stands out in the reduced number of non-classifications (0% in most tests), which in combination with the other metrics analyzed, results in a solid alternative for gender inference. This paper contributes to current literature on gender detection classification from names by testing the stability and performance of the most used state-of-the-art AI tool, suggesting that the generative language model of ChatGPT provides a robust alternative to traditional gender application programming interfaces (APIs), yet GDTs (especially Namsor) should be considered for research-oriented purposes.
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.