ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2024
The Utility of AI in Writing a Scientific Review Article on the Impacts of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Health.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative AI adoption and ethical perceptions: a comparative study of medical and non-medical researchers in Chinese universities.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Generative AI in Otolaryngology Residency Personal Statement Writing: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Is ChatGPT a Reliable Auxiliary Tool in Basic Life Support Training and Education? A Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Use of AI Language Engine ChatGPT 4.0 to Write a Scientific Review Article Examining the Intersection of Alzheimer's Disease and Bone.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- COVID-19 and Bone Loss: A Review of Risk Factors, Mechanisms, and Future Directions.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- Using AI to Write a Review Article Examining the Role of the Nervous System on Skeletal Homeostasis and Fracture Healing.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- SARS-CoV-2 and its Multifaceted Impact on Bone Health: Mechanisms and Clinical Evidence.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThere were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts. RECENT
findingsUnfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.
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.