ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated surgical literature: the accuracy of a review on penile prosthesis implantation.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 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
The integration of artificial intelligence language models into medical literature requires rigorous evaluation of accuracy and reliability, especially in specialized domains. This study assessed ChatGPT-5's capacity to generate clinically accurate scientific content on penile prosthesis implantation. Using structured prompts, ChatGPT-5 produced a narrative review evaluated across four domains: (1) verification of factual statements, (2) reference validity via PubMed and Google Scholar, (3) plagiarism screening with iThenticate and Quetext, and (4) qualitative assessment using Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles and a peer-review rubric. ChatGPT-5 demonstrated high factual accuracy overall, correctly supporting most statements, although errors were identified in historical timelines and survival data. In contrast, reference analysis revealed significant weaknesses, with only about one-third of citations being fully accurate and several containing fabricated or incomplete bibliographic details. Text similarity rates were low. Overall quality was rated as good according to standardized assessment tools, with strong agreement between reviewers. Collectively, these findings indicate that ChatGPT-5 can produce clinically accurate, well-structured content but demonstrates important weaknesses in reference reliability and evidence synthesis. The results support a hybrid model in which artificial intelligence serves as a drafting aid under expert supervision rather than as a standalone author. Future work should prioritize strengthening citation validity to enhance reliability while safeguarding scientific integrity.
Identifiers
42203918What 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.