ReviewCureus2025
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Urology: Navigating the Frontier of Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Challenges.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Transforming Urological Care With Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: From Digital Assistants to Clinical Partners.International neurourology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models and image-generation tools, is poised to transform the field of urology. These technologies enable innovative applications in medical education, clinical decision support, patient communication, and surgical planning, extending beyond traditional analytical AI by creating new content, from synthetic clinical notes to simulated surgical environments. In urology, these capabilities translate into automated summarization of complex patient histories, generation of patient-specific three-dimensional anatomical reconstructions, and support for differential diagnosis in conditions such as prostate cancer or renal masses. However, the rapid adoption of generative AI also introduces significant ethical, legal, and clinical challenges. Risks are amplified in urological practice, where sensitive imaging data, biomarker profiles, and diagnostic decision pathways may be vulnerable to privacy breaches, algorithmic bias, or erroneous AI-generated recommendations. Hallucinated outputs, such as incorrect treatment summaries or misinterpreted radiologic features, can directly compromise patient safety if not rigorously validated. This review synthesizes the current landscape of generative AI in urology, critically examines these discipline-specific risks, and proposes a structured framework for responsible integration into clinical workflows. We highlight the need for transparent governance, bias mitigation, prospective validation, and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure that generative AI enhances, rather than undermines, the quality, equity, and safety of urologic care.
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.