ArticleScientific reports2025
Performance of ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot in Bing in answering obstetric ultrasound questions and analyzing obstetric ultrasound reports.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A data-driven design for sound absorption of acoustic metamaterials based on large language models.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate and compare the performance of publicly available ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0 and Microsoft Copilot in Bing (Copilot) in answering obstetric ultrasound questions and analyzing obstetric ultrasound reports. Twenty questions related to obstetric ultrasound were answered and 110 obstetric ultrasound reports were analyzed by ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0 and Copilot, with each question and report being posed three times to them at different times. The accuracy and consistency of each response to twenty questions and each analysis result in the report were evaluated and compared. In answering twenty questions, both ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 outperformed Copilot in accuracy (95.0% vs. 80.0%) and consistency (90.0% and 85.0% vs. 75.0%). However, no statistical difference was found among them. When analyzing obstetric ultrasound reports, ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4.0 demonstrated superior accuracy compared to Copilot (P < 0.05), and all three showed high consistency and the ability to provide recommendations. The overall accuracy and consistency of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, and Copilot were 83.86%, 84.13% vs. 77.51% in accuracy, and 87.30%, 93.65% vs. 90.48% in consistency, respectively. These large language models (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0 and Copilot) have the potential to assist clinical workflows by enhancing patient education and patient clinical communication around common obstetric ultrasound issues. With inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate responses, along with cybersecurity concerns, physician supervision is crucial in the use of these models.
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.