ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT-5, Claude, and DeepSeek for statistical analysis in medicine.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in biomedical research for statistical support, yet their reliability in selecting appropriate tests and generating correct software commands remains insufficiently evaluated. This study compared the performance of ChatGPT-5, Claude, and DeepSeek in identifying statistical tests and generating corresponding Stata 15 commands.
methodsThirty-two examples were adapted from the UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education Stata tutorial. Each model was tested twice independently using standardized prompts. Responses were classified using a four-level taxonomy: COR (reference-equivalent, i.e., no deviation), SYN (minor syntactic deviation, i.e., low-risk deviation), ALT (alternative valid specification, i.e., low-risk deviation), and CMM (conceptual mismatch with potential inferential impact, i.e., high-risk deviation). Accuracy was defined as the proportion of outputs with no or low-risk deviations, calculated as (COR + SYN + ALT)/32. Model comparisons used Fisher's exact test, and reproducibility across rounds was assessed with McNemar's test and Fisher's exact test.
resultsAll three models correctly identified the statistical test in all 32 examples (100% accuracy in both rounds). For Stata command generation, accuracy was high and comparable across models (round 1: ChatGPT = 90.6%, Claude = 93.8%, DeepSeek = 93.8%; round 2: ChatGPT = 90.6%, Claude = 96.9%, DeepSeek = 87.5%; p > 0.05). High-risk deviations were rare (≤ 12.5% in any model-round combination). Reproducibility between rounds was excellent (ChatGPT = 100%, Claude = 96.9%, DeepSeek = 93.8%; p > 0.05).
conclusionChatGPT-5, Claude, and DeepSeek demonstrated high accuracy and reproducibility in structured statistical reasoning tasks, with rare high-risk deviations that could potentially affect statistical inference. These findings support the use of advanced LLMs as complementary tools for applied statistical reasoning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41746546What 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.