ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2023
The ChatGPT conundrum: Human-generated scientific manuscripts misidentified as AI creations by AI text detection tool.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the Prevalence of Generative AI Use in Medical School Application Essays: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Can we trust academic AI detective? Accuracy and limitations of AI-output detectors.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Academic Integrity Within the Medical Curriculum in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative Detector Analysis for the Identification of Academic Articles Synthesized by Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Ophthalmology.Beyoglu eye journal · 2025Article
- Ethics of Writing Personal Statements and Letters of Recommendations with Large Language Models.ATS scholar · 2024Review
- Detection of ChatGPT fake science with the xFakeSci learning algorithm.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Characterizing the Increase in Artificial Intelligence Content Detection in Oncology Scientific Abstracts From 2021 to 2023.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Applications of Large Language Models in Pathology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Global insights: ChatGPT's influence on academic and research writing, creativity, and plagiarism policies.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AI Chat Bots such as ChatGPT are revolutionizing our AI capabilities, especially in text generation, to help expedite many tasks, but they introduce new dilemmas. The detection of AI-generated text has become a subject of great debate considering the AI text detector's known and unexpected limitations. Thus far, much research in this area has focused on the detection of AI-generated text; however, the goal of this study was to evaluate the opposite scenario, an AI-text detection tool's ability to discriminate human-generated text. Thousands of abstracts from several of the most well-known scientific journals were used to test the predictive capabilities of these detection tools, assessing abstracts from 1980 to 2023. We found that the AI text detector erroneously identified up to 8% of the known real abstracts as AI-generated text. This further highlights the current limitations of such detection tools and argues for novel detectors or combined approaches that can address this shortcoming and minimize its unanticipated consequences as we navigate this new AI landscape.
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.