On the utility of ChatGPT in conducting a literature review on deep learning for dopamine transporter SPECT with [¹²³I]ioflupane.

Corrections to ChatGPT-generated structured summaries were required in 27 cases (40.3%), affecting one or two of the 24 predefined fields, while no changes were necessary in 40 publications (59.7%).

Most corrections could likely have been avoided by more precise prompting.

All numerical information (dataset sizes, train-test splits, performance metrics) was correct.

The review draft (~950 words) generated by ChatGPT was content-wise meaningful and accurate, but contained referencing errors, including incorrect citations, missing references, and citations of non-existent publications.