ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Making prostate cancer research accessible: chatGPT-4 as a tool to enhance lay communication].
Article in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and hospitals].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- From Algorithms to Insight: The Transformative Power of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Urological Cancer Research.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe abundant potential arising from various applications of artificial intelligence is gradually influencing academic and scientific communication. This study examines the suitability of ChatGPT‑4 for generating layperson's summaries (LS) of scientific articles published in the four journals within the European Urology family and compares the quality of these newly generated LS with the original texts.
methodsA total of 327 articles on prostate cancer published between January 1, 2023, and June 30, 2024, were analyzed. ChatGPT‑4 generated patient summaries using both a basic and an advanced prompt, the latter specifically optimized for enhancing readability. Readability was assessed using established indices, while two blinded reviewers evaluated content quality on a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, readability, content quality, and adherence to journal guidelines were combined into an overall scoring system.
resultsThe advanced prompt led to significantly improved readability compared to the basic prompt (p < 0.001) and the original LS (p < 0.001). Content quality was comparable between the two ChatGPT‑4 prompts (p = 0.665) but was higher than that of the original summaries (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). Both prompts demonstrated superior adherence to journal guidelines (p < 0.001), with error-free LS rates of 29.4% (original), 76.1% (basic prompt), and 92% (advanced prompt) (p < 0.001).
conclusionChatGPT‑4 is a validated and effective tool for generating LS, offering superior readability and high compliance with editorial guidelines. It has the potential to assist researchers and scientific journals in enhancing the accessibility and comprehensibility of scientific content, thereby, improving patient engagement and understanding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40192830What 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.