ArticleJMIR cancer2026
Assessing the Accuracy, Completeness, and Reference Quality of GPT-4 and Google for Gynecologic Cancer Information: Comparative Quantitative Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with newly diagnosed gynecologic cancers often seek information online, but the quality of available resources may be inconsistent. Although GPT-4 may offer an alternative to traditional internet search engines, its performance remains largely under-studied in gynecologic oncology.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the completeness, accuracy, and reference quality of responses generated by GPT-4 with those generated by Google in clinical scenarios involving a new diagnosis of a gynecologic cancer.
methodsClinical scenarios representing early- and advanced-stage endometrial, ovarian, and cervical cancers were developed by gynecologic oncologists using publicly available patient education materials. Each scenario included 4 standardized questions addressing etiology, prognosis, treatment, and treatment efficacy. GPT-4 and Google were queried for each question, with new sessions for GPT-4 and private browsing for Google to minimize bias. Responses were independently evaluated by 4 gynecologic oncology experts who were blinded to each other's ratings. Accuracy was scored on a 6-point Likert scale; completeness and reference quality were scored on 3-point scales. Reference quality was categorized as low (commercial), medium (institutional or government), or high (peer reviewed). Optional free-text reviewer comments were collected and summarized descriptively to provide context for the quantitative findings. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for analysis.
resultsAcross 6 clinical scenarios and 21 standardized questions (N=84 total responses), GPT-4 outperformed Google across all evaluated domains. The median accuracy score was 6.00 (IQR 5.00-6.00) for GPT-4 and 5.00 (IQR 4.00-6.00) for Google (P=.04). The median completeness score was 3.00 (IQR 3.00-3.00) for GPT-4 and 2.00 (IQR 1.00-3.00) for Google (P=.009). Reference quality was also higher for GPT-4, with a median score of 3.00 (IQR 3.00-3.00) compared to 2.00 (IQR 2.00-2.00) for Google (P=.009). Reviewer comments noted that GPT-4 provided more accurate, comprehensive, and personalized responses, while Google returned less detailed content from general consumer health websites rather than peer-reviewed sources.
conclusionsGPT-4 may serve as a reliable and high-quality resource for information in gynecologic oncology. Compared to Google, it delivered more accurate and complete content, with higher-quality references. Further research is needed to assess the readability and accessibility of GPT-4-generated content across diverse patient populations.
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.