ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Feasibility analysis of generative artificial intelligence tools as a means of medical science popularization on urological diseases.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the heavy medical workload of medical staff and the complicated procedure of medical science popularization, there are certain difficulties and resistance in medical science popularization. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of generative artificial intelligence (AI) models in the medical science popularization of urological diseases. Methods: ChatGPT 4.0 was used to generate relevant content on the pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment of different urological diseases, and the generated content was evaluated and analyzed in multiple dimensions including scientificity, recency, comprehensiveness, understandability, conciseness and interest. The unreasonable contents of ChatGPT 4.0 were revised. Then all the revised contents were evaluated again from the six dimensions and compared with the initial evaluation. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 generated content scored high in scientificity, recency, and comprehensiveness, while scoring relatively low in understandability, conciseness, and interest. There was no significant difference in the scores of the generated content in different diseases. There was no significant difference in the scores of pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and treatment. Manual revision could significantly improve the comprehensiveness and conciseness of the generated content. Conclusions: Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT may assist urologists in popularizing knowledge of urological diseases, and the generated content needs to be manually reviewed to ensure the accuracy and readability of the content.
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.