ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2023
GPTZero Performance in Identifying Artificial Intelligence-Generated Medical Texts: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Prevalence of Generative AI Use in Medical School Application Essays: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Consideration of Ethics in AI-assisted Scientific Writing and Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Human versus artificial intelligence: investigating ability of young academics from research and non-research institutions to identify ChatGPT-generated dental research abstracts.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Understanding Physician Attitudes Toward AI in Clinical Decision-Making: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Artificial Intelligence: Trends, Ethical Concerns, and Scientific Integrity.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- An Evaluation of Current Trends in AI-Generated Text in Otolaryngology Publications.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Article
- Authors must follow the editorial guidelines on the use of large language models in review papers.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Perspectives of Artificial Intelligence Use for In-House Ethics Checks of Journal Submissions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Rate of AI-Generated Text in Medical School Applicants' Personal Comments Essays.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Identification of dental related ChatGPT generated abstracts by senior and young academicians versus artificial intelligence detectors and a similarity detector.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing the Current Limitations of Large Language Models in Advancing Health Care Education.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Strategies for integrating ChatGPT and generative AI into clinical studies.Blood research · 2024Review
- Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Characterizing the Increase in Artificial Intelligence Content Detection in Oncology Scientific Abstracts From 2021 to 2023.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Variability in Journal and Publisher Policies on Artificial Intelligence Use in Manuscript Preparation: An Orthopaedic Perspective.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Generative artificial intelligence in ophthalmology research writing: A comprehensive review of applications, detection tools, and ethical considerations.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith emergence of chatbots to help authors with scientific writings, editors should have tools to identify artificial intelligence-generated texts. GPTZero is among the first websites that has sought media attention claiming to differentiate machine-generated from human-written texts.
methodsUsing 20 text pieces generated by ChatGPT in response to arbitrary questions on various topics in medicine and 30 pieces chosen from previously published medical articles, the performance of GPTZero was assessed.
resultsGPTZero had a sensitivity of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.85); specificity, 0.90 (0.73-0.98); accuracy, 0.80 (0.66-0.90); and positive and negative likelihood ratios, 6.5 (2.1-19.9) and 0.4 (0.2-0.7), respectively.
conclusionGPTZero has a low false-positive (classifying a human-written text as machine-generated) and a high false-negative rate (classifying a machine-generated text as human-written).
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.