Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36841840›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2023

Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?

Michele Salvagno, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Alberto Giovanni Gerli

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 204 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
204citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

204 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review

144 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michele SalvagnoDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. michele.salvagno@ulb.be.
Fabio Silvio TacconeDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
Alberto Giovanni GerliDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università Degli Studi di Milano, 20122, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot in scientific writing. ChatGPT is a type of chatbot, developed by OpenAI, that uses the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) language model to understand and respond to natural language inputs. AI chatbot and ChatGPT in particular appear to be useful tools in scientific writing, assisting researchers and scientists in organizing material, generating an initial draft and/or in proofreading. There is no publication in the field of critical care medicine prepared using this approach; however, this will be a possibility in the next future. ChatGPT work should not be used as a replacement for human judgment and the output should always be reviewed by experts before being used in any critical decision-making or application. Moreover, several ethical issues arise about using these tools, such as the risk of plagiarism and inaccuracies, as well as a potential imbalance in its accessibility between high- and low-income countries, if the software becomes paying. For this reason, a consensus on how to regulate the use of chatbots in scientific writing will soon be required.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceWritingHumansArtificial intelligenceChatbotsMachine learningScientific writing

Identifiers

PMID36841840
PMCPMC9960412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.