ArticleScientific reports2023
A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 279 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Dermatology "AI Babylon": Cross-Language Evaluation of AI-Crafted Dermatology Descriptions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Perceived quality of AI-generated and human-written news: a cross-national experimental study among journalism students in China and Vietnam.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigating the threat of AI to undergraduate medical school admissions: a study of its potential impact on the rating of applicant essays.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- ChatGPT's role in the rapidly evolving hematologic cancer landscape.Future science OA · 2025Article
- GPT-4 shows comparable performance to human examiners in ranking open-text answers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Practicing pharmacist education based on the experiences of medical support on the cruise ship Diamond Princess.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Prompt engineering in ChatGPT for literature review: practical guide exemplified with studies on white phosphors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Can ChatGPT-4o Really Pass Medical Science Exams? A Pragmatic Analysis Using Novel Questions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Generated Editorials in Radiology: Can Expert Editors Detect Them?AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Article
- How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Evaluating AI performance in nephrology triage and subspecialty referrals.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- "It is important to consult" a linguist: Verb-Argument Constructions in ChatGPT and human experts' medical and financial advice.PloS one · 2025Article
- Delving Into PubMed Records: How AI-Influenced Vocabulary has Transformed Medical Writing since ChatGPT.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Reassessing AI in Medicine: Exploring the Capabilities of AI in Academic Abstract Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Article
- Testing the capacity of Bard and ChatGPT for writing essays on ethical dilemmas: A cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- GPT-3.5 altruistic advice is sensitive to reciprocal concerns but not to strategic risk.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and have become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and lead to significant changes in the education system and information generation. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models-both lack scientific rigor. We systematically assess the quality of AI-generated content through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays. We use essays that were rated by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis by considering a set of linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher regarding quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays. Since the technology is readily available, we believe that educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilizes the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives.
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.