ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2026
Age- and sex-related variation in ChatGPT-4o HPV vaccine recommendation style: A fixed-prompt audit.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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
ChatGPT is increasingly consulted for vaccine information, but demographic variation in recommendation framing is understudied. We audited ChatGPT-4o (1-2 May 2025) using 720 prompt instances from 156 coded seed prompts: one eligibility anchor and 12 misconception-based prompts across six age bands and two sex framings, each with 4-5 lexical variants. Replies were classified as presumptive, strong, shared decision-making, or recommend-against. Bayesian mixed-effects logistic models were fitted at the seed-prompt cluster level, with sex, age band, and their interaction as fixed effects and random intercepts for prompt topic and age-by-topic cluster (inter-coder kappa = 0.93). Through age 26y, all instances were directive. At ages 27-45y, the adjusted probability of a strong recommendation was 14.0% for women vs. 68.7% for men (difference, -54.7% points [95% credible interval, -71.8 to -32.8]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.04 [95% CrI, 0.008-0.19]). After age 45y, the adjusted probability of a recommend-against response was 59.9% for women vs. 41.1% for men (difference, 18.8% points [95% CrI, -5.4 to 40.8]; aOR, 2.40 [95% CrI, 0.77-7.50]). The 27-45y contrast remained clear after cluster adjustment; the >45y contrast was imprecise. This study evaluated recommendation style, not factual accuracy, guideline adherence, or vaccination behavior.
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.