ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
ChatGPT assisted generation of systematic review ideas in urooncology.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the performance of ChatGPT in the generation of new systematic review ideas in urooncology.
methodsIn September 2024, we requested ChatGPT Version 4.0 to generate 10 systematic review ideas in general urooncology and also 10 ideas for each of the four subcategories: bladder cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and testicular cancer. We utilized PubMed and Scopus to examine 50 ideas to determine whether prior systematic reviews had addressed them. Novelty was defined as a topic without prior systematic review.
resultsChatGPT generated 30% original systematic review ideas, with 15 out of 50 being novel. The novelty rate for general urooncology was 50%. The rates for subcategories were 10% for both bladder and prostate cancer, 50% for renal cell carcinoma, and 30% for testicular malignancies. Approximately 10% of general research concepts external to systematic reviews were novel.
conclusionChatGPT performed very well in producing creative, apt, and partially viable systematic review ideas in urooncology. Although human judgment is still required to determine feasibility and create proposals with better accuracy, ChatGPT and other large language models can be useful aids while designing research, especially for dynamic and information-heavy disciplines such as urooncology.
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.