ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2025
Statistical analysis using ChatGPT in medical research.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 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.
- Can large language models accurately compute descriptive statistics from structured datasets? A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Performance, Failures, and Oversight of a Large Language Model Agent for Clinical Data Analysis: Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the utility of ChatGPT in streamlining statistical analyses within medical research, evaluating its capabilities in data management, exploratory data analysis (EDA), statistical test selection, and result interpretation. It also addresses the critical need for appropriate disclosures and ethical considerations when integrating artificial intelligence (AI) tools into a scientific workflow. We review the current landscape of AI adoption in medical research, focusing on the role of ChatGPT in statistical analysis. Practical examples from lecture materials demonstrate its application in generating virtual datasets, performing data cleaning, conducting EDA, and assisting in the selection of appropriate statistical tests. Furthermore, guidelines for transparently disclosing AI tool usage in scientific manuscripts in accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations are discussed. ChatGPT demonstrates considerable potential for accelerating various stages of statistical analysis, from initial data preparation to the interpretation of results. Its ability to rapidly generate virtual data for practice, assist in comprehensive data cleaning, and provide immediate insights through EDA can substantially enhance research efficiency. Although capable of suggesting statistical methods and interpreting outputs, human intervention remains crucial for verifying assumptions and ensuring calculation accuracy. ChatGPT can serve as a powerful assistant in medical statistical analyses, enabling researchers to conduct analyses more efficiently. However, its use requires careful data preprocessing, human verification of results, and transparent reporting to maintain scientific rigor and reproducibility. Adherence to ethical guidelines and journal policies regarding AI tool disclosure is paramount.
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.