Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40825566›Full record

ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2025

Statistical analysis using ChatGPT in medical research.

Soo-Nyung Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Soo-Nyung KimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceChatGPTMedical statisticsStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID40825566
PMCPMC12645003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.