ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2026
Reproducibility of natural-language-driven statistical workflows compared with conventional software for diagnostic metrics in prostate cancer research.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate whether a natural language-driven analytical workflow specified through a large language model (LLM) can accurately encode, execute, and reproducibly replicate a predefined statistical process traditionally performed in SPSS, and to assess its efficiency and auditability in urological research. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dataset of 531 patients from a prostate cancer diagnostic study was analyzed in parallel using SPSS and ChatGPT's Data Analyst environment. Equivalent analytical procedures and variables were applied to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy. Concordance between methods was assessed using absolute deviation and reproducibility rates. Processing time and user workload were also compared.
resultsAfter two prompt-refinement steps to align analytical definitions, the LLM-based analysis achieved full concordance with SPSS across all diagnostic metrics, with a mean absolute deviation of <0.5%. Execution time for the stabilized artificial intelligence workflow was 8 minutes compared with 55 minutes for the conventional SPSS workflow, reflecting steady-state performance after workflow stabilization and excluding the initial prompt-refinement phase. Both methods produced identical diagnostic indices for clinically significant prostate cancer.
conclusionsA natural language-driven workflow can accurately specify and reproducibly execute a predefined statistical analysis with full numerical concordance under controlled conditions, while substantially reducing execution time after workflow stabilization. These findings support LLM-based interfaces as complementary tools for reproducible and auditable analytical workflows, rather than replacements for conventional statistical engines.
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.