ArticleCureus2023
ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Concerns and Ethical Considerations.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in UK Medical Education: A Framework for Curriculum Reform.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Impact of an AI workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among surgeons at an international abdominal wall surgery congress.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Social Media-Based Cancer Education: Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4's Performance in Identifying Radiological Anatomy in FRCR Part 1 Examination Questions.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of MENA researchers towards the use of ChatGPT in research: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2025Article
- PICOT questions and search strategies formulation: A novel approach using artificial intelligence automation.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025Article
- Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Manuscript Writing: Tips and Traps.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- From data extraction to analysis: a comparative study of ELISE capabilities in scientific literature.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Analysis of article screening and data extraction performance by an AI systematic literature review platform.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The impact of using ChatGPT on academic writing among medical undergraduates.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Large Language Models in Biomedical and Health Informatics: A Review with Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Pedagogic Strategies and Contents in Medical Writing/Publishing Education: A Comprehensive Systematic Survey.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024Review
- Article
- Comparison of Medical Research Abstracts Written by Surgical Trainees and Senior Surgeons or Generated by Large Language Models.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Assessing ChatGPT 4.0's test performance and clinical diagnostic accuracy on USMLE STEP 2 CK and clinical case reports.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Generative AI in medical writing: co-author or tool?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Best practices for recruitment in veterinary clinical trials.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) language generation models, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize the field of medical writing and other natural language processing (NLP) tasks. It is crucial to consider the ethical concerns that come with their use. These include bias, misinformation, privacy, lack of transparency, job displacement, stifling creativity, plagiarism, authorship, and dependence. Therefore, it is essential to develop strategies to understand and address these concerns. Important techniques include common bias and misinformation detection, ensuring privacy, providing transparency, and being mindful of the impact on employment. The AI-generated text must be critically reviewed by medical experts to validate the output generated by these models before being used in any clinical or medical context. By considering these ethical concerns and taking appropriate measures, we can ensure that the benefits of these powerful tools are maximized while minimizing any potential harm. This article focuses on the implications of AI assistants in medical writing and hopes to provide insight into the perceived rapid rate of technological progression from a historical and ethical perspective.
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.