Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968205›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Evaluation of research methodology generation by large language models in laryngology: a comparative analysis of ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini 1.5 flash.

Nurullah Türe, Elif Umurhan, Emel Tahir

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Nurullah TüreDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Türkiye. nurullah.ture@ksbu.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-5634
Elif UmurhanDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Türkiye.
Emel TahirDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5219-0542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to compare the ability of two major language models, ChatGPT-4.0 and Gemini 1.5 Flash, to establish a research methodology based on scientific publications in laryngology.

methodsWe screened 80 articles selected from five prestigious otolaryngology journals and included 60 articles with a methods section and statistical analysis. These were classified according to six research types: cell culture, animal experiments, prospective, retrospective, systematic review, and artificial intelligence. A total of 30 studies were analyzed, with five articles randomly selected from each group. For each article, both language models were asked to produce research methodologies, and the responses were evaluated by two independent raters.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the models (p > 0.05). ChatGPT 4.0 had a higher mean score (5.17 ± 1.12), especially in the data collection and measurement-assessment category. The Gemini model showed relatively more balanced performance in the statistical analysis category. The weighted kappa values were between 0.54 and 0.71, indicating a moderate to high agreement between the raters. In the analysis by article type, Gemini's performance in Q1 showed significant variation (p = 0.038).

conclusionLarge language models such as ChatGPT and Gemini provide similarly consistent results in establishing the methodology of scientific studies in laryngology. Both models can be considered supportive tools; however, expert supervision is needed, especially for complex constructs such as statistical analysis. This study makes original contributions to the usability of LLMs for study design in laryngology.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchLanguageOtolaryngologyResearch DesignGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsArtificial intelligenceChatGPTGeminiLarge language modelsLaryngologyMethodologyOtolaryngology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.