ChatGPT在样本量估计中的表现:人工智能能力的初步研究。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Paul Sebo, Ting Wang
{"title":"ChatGPT在样本量估计中的表现:人工智能能力的初步研究。","authors":"Paul Sebo, Ting Wang","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmaf069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence tools, including large language models such as ChatGPT, are increasingly integrated into clinical and primary care research. However, their ability to assist with specialized statistical tasks, such as sample size estimation, remains largely unexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o in estimating sample sizes across 24 standard statistical scenarios. Examples were selected from a statistical textbook and an educational website, covering basic methods such as estimating means, proportions, and correlations. Each example was tested twice per model. Models were accessed through the ChatGPT web interface, with a new independent chat session initiated for each round. Accuracy was assessed using mean and median absolute percentage error compared with validated reference values. Reproducibility was assessed using symmetric mean and median absolute percentage error between rounds. Comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o, absolute percentage errors ranged from 0% to 15.2% (except one case: 26.3%) and 0% to 14.3%, respectively, with most examples showing errors below 5%. ChatGPT-4o showed better accuracy than ChatGPT-4.0 (mean absolute percentage error: 3.1% vs. 4.1% in round#1, P-value = .01; 2.8% vs. 5.1% in round#2, P-value =.02) and lower symmetric mean absolute percentage error (0.8% vs. 2.5%), though not significant (P-value = .18).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o provided reasonably accurate sample size estimates across standard scenarios, with good reproducibility. However, inconsistencies were observed, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation and expert validation. Further research should assess performance in more complex contexts and across a broader range of AI models.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":"42 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411907/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT's performance in sample size estimation: a preliminary study on the capabilities of artificial intelligence.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Sebo, Ting Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmaf069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence tools, including large language models such as ChatGPT, are increasingly integrated into clinical and primary care research. However, their ability to assist with specialized statistical tasks, such as sample size estimation, remains largely unexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o in estimating sample sizes across 24 standard statistical scenarios. Examples were selected from a statistical textbook and an educational website, covering basic methods such as estimating means, proportions, and correlations. Each example was tested twice per model. Models were accessed through the ChatGPT web interface, with a new independent chat session initiated for each round. Accuracy was assessed using mean and median absolute percentage error compared with validated reference values. Reproducibility was assessed using symmetric mean and median absolute percentage error between rounds. Comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o, absolute percentage errors ranged from 0% to 15.2% (except one case: 26.3%) and 0% to 14.3%, respectively, with most examples showing errors below 5%. ChatGPT-4o showed better accuracy than ChatGPT-4.0 (mean absolute percentage error: 3.1% vs. 4.1% in round#1, P-value = .01; 2.8% vs. 5.1% in round#2, P-value =.02) and lower symmetric mean absolute percentage error (0.8% vs. 2.5%), though not significant (P-value = .18).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o provided reasonably accurate sample size estimates across standard scenarios, with good reproducibility. However, inconsistencies were observed, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation and expert validation. Further research should assess performance in more complex contexts and across a broader range of AI models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":\"42 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411907/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmaf069\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmaf069","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:人工智能工具,包括ChatGPT等大型语言模型,越来越多地融入临床和初级保健研究。然而,它们协助特定统计任务的能力,如样本量估计,在很大程度上仍未得到探索。方法:我们评估了ChatGPT-4.0和chatgpt - 40在24个标准统计情景下估计样本量的准确性和再现性。例子选自一本统计教科书和一个教育网站,涵盖了估计平均值、比例和相关性等基本方法。每个示例对每个模型都进行了两次测试。通过ChatGPT web界面访问模型,每轮启动一个新的独立聊天会话。使用与验证参考值比较的平均和中位数绝对百分比误差来评估准确性。采用轮间对称平均和中位数绝对百分比误差评估再现性。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行比较。结果:对于ChatGPT-4.0和chatgpt - 40,绝对误差百分比分别为0% ~ 15.2%(除了一个案例:26.3%)和0% ~ 14.3%,大多数案例的误差都在5%以下。chatgpt - 40的准确性优于ChatGPT-4.0(平均绝对百分比误差:3.1%对4.1%,第1轮,p值= 0.01;2.8%对5.1%,第2轮,p值= 0.02),对称平均绝对百分比误差更低(0.8%对2.5%),但不显著(p值=. 18)。结论:ChatGPT-4.0和chatgpt - 40在标准情景下提供了合理准确的样本量估计,具有良好的再现性。然而,观察到不一致,强调需要谨慎解释和专家验证。进一步的研究应该在更复杂的环境和更广泛的人工智能模型中评估性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

ChatGPT's performance in sample size estimation: a preliminary study on the capabilities of artificial intelligence.

ChatGPT's performance in sample size estimation: a preliminary study on the capabilities of artificial intelligence.

Background: Artificial intelligence tools, including large language models such as ChatGPT, are increasingly integrated into clinical and primary care research. However, their ability to assist with specialized statistical tasks, such as sample size estimation, remains largely unexplored.

Methods: We evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o in estimating sample sizes across 24 standard statistical scenarios. Examples were selected from a statistical textbook and an educational website, covering basic methods such as estimating means, proportions, and correlations. Each example was tested twice per model. Models were accessed through the ChatGPT web interface, with a new independent chat session initiated for each round. Accuracy was assessed using mean and median absolute percentage error compared with validated reference values. Reproducibility was assessed using symmetric mean and median absolute percentage error between rounds. Comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results: For ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o, absolute percentage errors ranged from 0% to 15.2% (except one case: 26.3%) and 0% to 14.3%, respectively, with most examples showing errors below 5%. ChatGPT-4o showed better accuracy than ChatGPT-4.0 (mean absolute percentage error: 3.1% vs. 4.1% in round#1, P-value = .01; 2.8% vs. 5.1% in round#2, P-value =.02) and lower symmetric mean absolute percentage error (0.8% vs. 2.5%), though not significant (P-value = .18).

Conclusions: ChatGPT-4.0 and ChatGPT-4o provided reasonably accurate sample size estimates across standard scenarios, with good reproducibility. However, inconsistencies were observed, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation and expert validation. Further research should assess performance in more complex contexts and across a broader range of AI models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信