ArticleAEM education and training2023
Brain versus bot: Distinguishing letters of recommendation authored by humans compared with artificial intelligence.
Article in AEM education and training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Teaching Rounds: Orienting Graduate Medical Education Without the Hype.Journal of graduate medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence Meets Holistic Review: Promises and Pitfalls of Automating the Medical Education Admissions Process.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2025Article
- A guide to creating a high-quality cover letter.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Brain versus bot: Distinguishing letters of recommendation authored by humans compared with artificial intelligence.AEM education and training · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Letters of recommendation (LORs) are essential within academic medicine, affecting a number of important decisions regarding advancement, yet these letters take significant amounts of time and labor to prepare. The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, are gaining popularity for a variety of academic writing tasks and offer an innovative solution to relieve the burden of letter writing. It is yet to be determined if ChatGPT could aid in crafting LORs, particularly in high-stakes contexts like faculty promotion. To determine the feasibility of this process and whether there is a significant difference between AI and human-authored letters, we conducted a study aimed at determining whether academic physicians can distinguish between the two. Methods: A quasi-experimental study was conducted using a single-blind design. Academic physicians with experience in reviewing LORs were presented with LORs for promotion to associate professor, written by either humans or AI. Participants reviewed LORs and identified the authorship. Statistical analysis was performed to determine accuracy in distinguishing between human and AI-authored LORs. Additionally, the perceived quality and persuasiveness of the LORs were compared based on suspected and actual authorship. Results: A total of 32 participants completed letter review. The mean accuracy of distinguishing between human- versus AI-authored LORs was 59.4%. The reviewer's certainty and time spent deliberating did not significantly impact accuracy. LORs suspected to be human-authored were rated more favorably in terms of quality and persuasiveness. A difference in gender-biased language was observed in our letters: human-authored letters contained significantly more female-associated words, while the majority of AI-authored letters tended to use more male-associated words. Conclusions: Participants were unable to reliably differentiate between human- and AI-authored LORs for promotion. AI may be able to generate LORs and relieve the burden of letter writing for academicians. New strategies, policies, and guidelines are needed to balance the benefits of AI while preserving integrity and fairness in academic promotion decisions.
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.