ReviewCureus2023
Recent Trend in Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Biomedical Publishing: A Quantitative Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Statistical analysis using ChatGPT in medical research.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2025Article
- AI detectors are poor western blot classifiers: a study of accuracy and predictive values.PeerJ · 2025Article
- The First Months of Life of ChatGPT and Its Impact in Healthcare: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Current Literature.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Article
- Characterizing the Increase in Artificial Intelligence Content Detection in Oncology Scientific Abstracts From 2021 to 2023.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in diagnosing upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Can ChatGPT be the Plastic Surgeon's New Digital Assistant? A Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review of ChatGPT in Plastic Surgery Literature.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Modern threats in academia: evaluating plagiarism and artificial intelligence detection scores of ChatGPT.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the application of artificial intelligence in connection with sport research, coaching, and optimization of athletic performance: a brief SWOT analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- Variability in Journal and Publisher Policies on Artificial Intelligence Use in Manuscript Preparation: An Orthopaedic Perspective.JB & JS open accessArticle
- A 25-year retrospective of Canadian plastic surgery research and its influence: a bibliometric study.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology in recent years have led to its integration into biomedical publishing. However, the extent to which AI has contributed to developing biomedical literature is unclear. This study aimed to identify trends in AI-generated content within peer-reviewed biomedical literature. We first tested the sensitivity and specificity of commercially available AI-detection software (Originality.AI, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada). Next, we conducted a MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) search to identify randomized controlled trials with available abstracts indexed between January 2020 and March 2023. We randomly selected 30 abstracts per quarter during this period and pasted the abstracts into the AI detection software to determine the probability of AI-generated content. The software yielded 100% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and excellent overall discriminatory ability with an area under the receiving operating curve of 97.6%. Among the 390 MEDLINE-indexed abstracts included in the analysis, the prevalence with a high probability (≥ 90%) of AI-generated text increased during the study period from 21.7% to 36.7% (p=0.01) based on a chi-square test for trend. The increasing prevalence of AI-generated text during the study period was also observed in various sensitivity analyses using AI probability thresholds ranging from 50% to 99% (all p≤0.01). The results of this study suggest that the prevalence of AI-assisted publishing in peer-reviewed journals has been increasing in recent years, even before the widespread adoption of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, United States) and similar tools. The extent to which natural writing characteristics of the authors, utilization of common AI-powered applications, and introduction of AI elements during the post-acceptance publication phase influence AI detection scores warrants further study.
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.