ArticleJMIR formative research2023
Strengths and Weaknesses of ChatGPT Models for Scientific Writing About Medical Vitamin B12: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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.
- Assessing multiple chatGPT versions on novel content in the Taiwan urology board examination: accuracy, speed, and domain-specific performance.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Application prospect of large language model represented by ChatGPT in ophthalmology.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- 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
- Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2025Article
- Large Language Models in Biomedical and Health Informatics: A Review with Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study.Insights into imaging · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI designed to generate human-like responses to prompts.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the ability of GPT-4 to generate scientific content and assist in scientific writing using medical vitamin B12 as the topic. Furthermore, the study will compare the performance of GPT-4 to its predecessor, GPT-3.5.
methodsThe study examined responses from GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 to vitamin B12-related prompts, focusing on their quality and characteristics and comparing them to established scientific literature.
resultsThe results indicated that GPT-4 can potentially streamline scientific writing through its ability to edit language and write abstracts, keywords, and abbreviation lists. However, significant limitations of ChatGPT were revealed, including its inability to identify and address bias, inability to include recent information, lack of transparency, and inclusion of inaccurate information. Additionally, it cannot check for plagiarism or provide proper references. The accuracy of GPT-4's answers was found to be superior to GPT-3.5.
conclusionsChatGPT can be considered a helpful assistant in the writing process but not a replacement for a scientist's expertise. Researchers must remain aware of its limitations and use it appropriately. The improvements in consecutive ChatGPT versions suggest the possibility of overcoming some present limitations in the near future.
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.