ArticleBMC medical education2026
Current practices and perceptions of ChatGPT in gynecologic oncology: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire (TRSGO-AI-001).
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to assess current practices, perceptions, and perceived effectiveness of ChatGPT among gynecologic oncology professionals in academic and clinical settings.
methodsA 23-item, international online survey was conducted between July and September 2025. Gynecologic oncology professionals were recruited via social media and snowball sampling. We evaluated demographics, awareness, utilization, and perceptions of ChatGPT-3.5 across different domains.
resultsOur respondents(n = 111) were predominantly aged 36–45 years(55.0%), from Türkiye (90.1%), and affiliated with academic institutions(87.4%). Nearly all respondents(99.1%) were aware of ChatGPT, and 66.7% reported professional use, primarily for literature summarization(52.3%), teaching(42.3%), and academic writing(36.9%). Direct clinical use remained somewhat limited(17.1%), with minimal engagement in patient communication(7.2%). Misinformation was the most commonly reported concern(66.7%). Perceived effectiveness was highest in academic writing, literature summarization, and teaching, whereas patient communication, clinical decision support, and exam preparation were rated somewhat low. Overall, 60.3% indicated that ChatGPT contributed meaningfully to their work, 45.9% supported its integration into gynecologic oncology education, and 58.5% would recommend it to colleagues. Participants < 45 years and those with < 5 years of clinical experience reported significantly more frequent ChatGPT use in their professional activities(p-value = 0.026). Those with greater clinical experience were more likely to use ChatGPT for writing purposes(p-value = 0.039), whereas those < 45 years used it more often for clinical decision-making(p-value = 0.015).
conclusionsChatGPT is widely recognized and used for academic and educational tasks in gynecologic oncology, yet its clinical applications remain limited. Future research should optimize large language models for clinical use, evaluate comparative outcomes across diverse models, and investigate their integration into multidisciplinary 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.