ChatGPT artificial intelligence in clinical data analysis: an example comparing standard vs fusion prostate biopsy outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP).
Pier Paolo Prontera, Francesca Romana Prusciano, Marco Lattarulo, Arman Tsaturyan, Francesco Addabbo, Carmine Sciorio, Francesco Saverio Grossi
{"title":"ChatGPT artificial intelligence in clinical data analysis: an example comparing standard <i>vs</i> fusion prostate biopsy outcomes after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP).","authors":"Pier Paolo Prontera, Francesca Romana Prusciano, Marco Lattarulo, Arman Tsaturyan, Francesco Addabbo, Carmine Sciorio, Francesco Saverio Grossi","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2025.13596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare statistical outputs from ChatGPT 4.0 and human experts in both comparative and correlation analyses in the evaluation of multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy plus random biopsy versus standard random biopsy alone, in terms of upstaging.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Authors performed a retrospective evaluation on 101 patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP) between 2021 and 2023. Patients were divided in two groups, according to the type of prostatic biopsy received: combined fusion (MRI/US) targeted and random biopsy versus standard random biopsy. Clinical and histological data were anonymized and analyzed using logistic regression models, ANOVA, and Chi-square tests. Analysis generated by ChatGPT and by an experienced human statistician were compared. The Q-EVAL and Q-EVA tools were used to assess the quality of user-formulated questions and AI-generated answers, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results revealed high concordance between statistical outputs generated by AI and expert human statistician with perfect concordance using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ = 1.0). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced likelihood of upstaging, a consistent finding across statistical evaluations. Additionally, user interaction assessments indicated high-quality in question formulation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT (version 4.0) proved reliable for statistical analysis, showing strong concordance with human statisticians (κ = 1.0) in performing logistic regression, chi-square, and ANOVA tests. The Q-EVAL tool could reduce query errors, though ChatGPT's lack of automatic citations remains a limitation. Fusion biopsy significantly lowered upstaging risk after RaRP. In conclusion, ChatGPT is a valuable assistive tool but further research is required to optimize human-AI collaboration in clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":" ","pages":"13596"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2025.13596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare statistical outputs from ChatGPT 4.0 and human experts in both comparative and correlation analyses in the evaluation of multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy plus random biopsy versus standard random biopsy alone, in terms of upstaging.
Methods: Authors performed a retrospective evaluation on 101 patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP) between 2021 and 2023. Patients were divided in two groups, according to the type of prostatic biopsy received: combined fusion (MRI/US) targeted and random biopsy versus standard random biopsy. Clinical and histological data were anonymized and analyzed using logistic regression models, ANOVA, and Chi-square tests. Analysis generated by ChatGPT and by an experienced human statistician were compared. The Q-EVAL and Q-EVA tools were used to assess the quality of user-formulated questions and AI-generated answers, respectively.
Results: Results revealed high concordance between statistical outputs generated by AI and expert human statistician with perfect concordance using Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ = 1.0). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that fusion biopsy was associated with a reduced likelihood of upstaging, a consistent finding across statistical evaluations. Additionally, user interaction assessments indicated high-quality in question formulation.
Conclusions: ChatGPT (version 4.0) proved reliable for statistical analysis, showing strong concordance with human statisticians (κ = 1.0) in performing logistic regression, chi-square, and ANOVA tests. The Q-EVAL tool could reduce query errors, though ChatGPT's lack of automatic citations remains a limitation. Fusion biopsy significantly lowered upstaging risk after RaRP. In conclusion, ChatGPT is a valuable assistive tool but further research is required to optimize human-AI collaboration in clinical research.