ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated clinical management recommendations for HPV infection and cervical premalignant lesions: a scenario-based expert assessment study.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models are increasingly explored as clinical decision-support tools; however, their reliability in gynecologic practice remains insufficiently characterized. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical management recommendations generated by ChatGPT-5 for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical premalignant lesions using a scenario-based expert assessment approach.
methodsFifteen clinically relevant scenarios reflecting common presentations of HPV infection and cervical premalignant lesions were developed in alignment with contemporary guideline frameworks. Each scenario was submitted to ChatGPT-5, and the resulting management and treatment recommendations were collected. The responses were independently evaluated by 50 experts, including 25 obstetrics and gynecology specialists and 25 gynecologic oncology specialists. Four predefined domains—guideline adherence, coverage, applicability, and overall satisfaction—were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Between-group comparisons, effect size analyses, and inter-rater reliability metrics were applied to explore differences in expert evaluations.
resultsThe assessments revealed domain-specific variations between expert groups. Gynecologic oncologists assigned higher scores for guideline adherence across multiple scenarios, whereas obstetrics and gynecology specialists reported higher scores for coverage and overall satisfaction. Applicability ratings were consistently high in both groups, with minimal between-group differences. Inter-rater reliability varied across domains, suggesting differing levels of agreement depending on the evaluated aspect of the responses.
conclusionsChatGPT-5 demonstrated the capacity to generate clinically relevant recommendations for HPV-related cervical premalignant conditions. Nonetheless, variability in expert evaluations—particularly in relation to guideline adherence—highlights the need for specialist oversight and cautious integration of large language models into clinical gynecologic decision-making.
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.