Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42729396›Full record

ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026

Can large language models accurately compute descriptive statistics from structured datasets? A comparative evaluation of ChatGPT and Claude.

Paul Sebo, Ting Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paul SeboUniversity Institute for primary care (IuMFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ting WangSchool of Library and Information Management, Emporia State University, Emporia, KS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support statistical analyses in biomedical research. However, their ability to accurately and reproducibly compute descriptive statistics directly from datasets has received limited evaluation. Objective: To compare the accuracy, within-modality repeatability, and between-modality consistency of ChatGPT and Claude in generating descriptive statistics from structured datasets provided through different input modalities. Methods: Two publicly available Stata datasets were evaluated: 'auto.dta' (74 observations, 12 variables) and 'citytemp.dta' (956 observations, 6 variables). Original variable names were replaced with generic labels. Each dataset was analyzed using three input modalities (copy-paste, Word, and Excel), with two independent repetitions per modality. Stata served as the reference standard. Accuracy was assessed for counts of missing and non-missing observations, minima, maxima, means, standard deviations, medians, quartiles, frequencies, and percentages. Results: ChatGPT and Claude produced identical results across all analyses. For each model, 624 categories of descriptive statistics were evaluated. Exact agreement with the Stata reference standard was observed for 576 of 624 categories (92.3%). The only deviations involved first and third quartiles (Q1-Q3) for eight variables. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that these differences were entirely attributable to the use of a different, but mathematically valid, quartile definition based on linear interpolation rather than computational errors. Within-modality repeatability and between-modality consistency were complete across the evaluated analyses. Conclusions: ChatGPT and Claude demonstrated excellent accuracy and consistent results across repeated analyses and input modalities for the datasets and descriptive statistics evaluated. After accounting for differences in quartile definitions, no calculation errors were identified across the 624 evaluated categories per model.

Indexed as

AIArtificial intelligenceChatGPTClaudeDescriptive statisticLarge language modelLLMResearchStatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID42729396
PMCPMC13562389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.