ReviewAmerican journal of cancer research2023
The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.
Review in American journal of cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
92 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Pooled it
- The Advent of Artificial Intelligence into Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review of Our Understanding.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review.Health promotion perspectives · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Writing and Rating Restorative Dentistry Essays.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Large Language Models and the Future of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publishing: Challenges, Editorial Responses, and a Framework for Responsible Integration.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Related to AI in Learning and Research Among Medical Students in Vietnam: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT provide reliable guidance to families of children with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy? A dual perspective of parents and experts.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- How Can Large Language Models Improve Health Research Skills: A Perspective Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Peer-reviewed by human experts: AI failed in key steps to generate a scoping review on the neural mechanisms of cross-education.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Current capabilities of large language models as peer reviewers for manuscripts submitted to ophthalmology-related journals.Medicine · 2026Article
- Applications of Large Language Models in Medical Research: From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- A structured framework for effective and responsible generative artificial intelligence chatbot prompt engineering throughout the scientific process: a comprehensive guide for the health and medical researcher.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Lessons Learned From AI-Assisted Guideline Generation in Parastomal Hernia Repair.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Examining the impact of generative AI on student motivation and engagement: the mediating role of autonomy-support and autonomous motivation in education.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The Application of Flipped Classroom Integrated with ChatGPT in Improving Graduate Education on Choroidal Melanoma.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Prompt engineering for generative artificial intelligence chatbots in health research: A practical guide for traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine researchers.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- GrantCheck-an AI Solution for Guiding Grant Language to New Policy Requirements: Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence tools represent an exciting opportunity for scientists to streamline their research and write impactful articles. Using artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT can greatly improve writing review articles for scientists, by enhancing efficiency and quality. ChatGPT speeds up writing, develops outlines, adds details, and helps improve writing style. However, ChatGPT's limitations must be kept in mind, and generated text must be reviewed and edited to avoid plagiarism and fabrication. Despite these limitations, ChatGPT is a powerful tool that allows scientists to focus on analyzing and interpreting literature reviews. Embracing these tools can help scientists produce meaningful research in a more efficient and effective manner, however caution must be taken and unchecked use of ChatGPT in writing should be avoided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37168339PMC10164801What 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.