ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2023
New Challenges in Scientific Publications: Referencing, Artificial Intelligence and ChatGPT.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence studies in medicines, pharmacotherapy, and pharmaceutical services: MedinAI development, validation and statement.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach.PloS one · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Medical Research: A Meta-Synthesis of Opportunities and Challenges.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2024Review
- Using ChatGPT for Clinical Practice and Medical Education: Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Students' and Physicians' Perceptions.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- AI's deep dive into complex pediatric inguinal hernia issues: a challenge to traditional guidelines?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- A concept-centric synthesis matrix framework (SMF) on application of Chat GPT in scientific writing: A journey from bigotry to Peril???Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in scientific publications, some of which have bypassed the usual peer-review processes, leading to an increase in unsupported claims being referenced. Therefore, the need for references in scientific articles is increasingly being questioned. The practice of relying solely on quantitative measures, such as impact factor, is also considered inadequate by many experts. This can lead to researchers choosing research ideas that are likely to generate favourable metrics instead of interesting and important topics. Evaluating the quality and scientific value of articles requires a rethinking of current approaches, with a move away from purely quantitative methods. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools are making scientific writing easier and less time-consuming, which is likely to further increase the number of scientific publications, potentially leading to higher quality articles. AI tools for searching, analysing, synthesizing, evaluating and writing scientific literature are increasingly being developed. These tools deeply analyse the content of articles, consider their scientific impact, and prioritize the retrieved literature based on this information, presenting it in simple visual graphs. They also help authors to quickly and easily analyse and synthesize knowledge from the literature, prepare summaries of key information, aid in organizing references, and improve manuscript language. The language model ChatGPT has already greatly changed the way people communicate with computers, bringing it closer to human communication. However, while AI tools are helpful, they must be used carefully and ethically. In summary, AI has already changed the way we write articles, and its use in scientific publishing will continue to enhance and streamline the process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.