ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025
ChatGPT's competence in responding to urological emergencies.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundIn recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been increasingly used as sources of medical information, alongside their applications in many other fields. This study is the first to evaluate ChatGPT's performance in addressing urological emergencies (UE).
methodsThe study included frequently asked questions (FAQs) by the public regarding UE, as well as UE-related questions formulated based on the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. The FAQs were selected from questions posed by patients to doctors and hospital accounts on social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and X) and on websites. All questions were presented to ChatGPT 4 (premium version) in English, and the responses were recorded. Two urologists assessed the quality of the responses using a Global Quality Score (GQS) on a scale of 1 to 5.
resultsOf the 73 total FAQs, 53 (72.6%) received a GQS score of 5, while only two (2.7%) received a GQS score of 1. The questions with a GQS score of 1 pertained to priapism and urosepsis. The topic with the highest proportion of responses receiving a GQS score of 5 was urosepsis (82.3%), whereas the lowest scores were observed in questions related to renal trauma (66.7%) and postrenal acute kidney injury (66.7%). A total of 42 questions were formulated based on the EAU guidelines, of which 23 (54.8%) received a GQS score of 5 from the physicians. The mean GQS score for FAQs was 4.38+-1.14, which was significantly higher (p=0.009) than the mean GQS score for EAU guideline-based questions (3.88+-1.47).
conclusionThis study demonstrated for the first time that nearly three out of four FAQs were answered accurately and satisfactorily by ChatGPT. However, the accuracy and proficiency of ChatGPT's responses significantly decreased when addressing guideline-based questions on UE.
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.