ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2024
Use of AI Language Engine ChatGPT 4.0 to Write a Scientific Review Article Examining the Intersection of Alzheimer's Disease and Bone.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for automated and audience-tailored labeling of latent classes.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Evaluating Multiple Input Strategies of Large Language Models for Gallbladder Polyps on Ultrasound: Comparative Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- The Application of Flipped Classroom Integrated with ChatGPT in Improving Graduate Education on Choroidal Melanoma.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- The missing disclosure: is generative AI use in bioethics scholarship going largely unreported?BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Generative AI in Otolaryngology Residency Personal Statement Writing: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Assessing the Accuracy and Completeness of AI-Generated Dental Responses: An Evaluation of the Chat-GPT Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Mind Gaps and Bone Snaps: Exploring the Connection Between Alzheimer's Disease and Osteoporosis.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- Article
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- Mind the Gap: Unraveling the Intricate Dance Between Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias and Bone Health.Current osteoporosis reports · 2024Review
- The Utility of AI in Writing a Scientific Review Article on the Impacts of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Health.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
- From the Mind to the Spine: The Intersecting World of Alzheimer's and Osteoporosis.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 reviewThis Comment represents three review articles on the relationship between Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and fracture in an exploration of the benefits that AI can provide in scientific writing. The first drafts of the articles were written (1) entirely by humans; (2) entirely by ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO); and (3) by humans and ChatGPT 4.0 whereby humans selected literature references, but ChatGPT 4.0 completed the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). Importantly, each review article was edited and carefully checked for accuracy by all co-authors resulting in a final manuscript which was significantly different from the original draft. RECENT
findingsThe human-written article took the most time from start to finish, the AI-only article took the least time, and the AI-assisted article fell between the two. When comparing first drafts to final drafts, the AI-only and AI-assisted articles had higher percentages of different text than the human article. The AI-only paper had a higher percentage of incorrect references in the first draft than the AI-assisted paper. The first draft of the AI-assisted article had a higher similarity score than the other two articles when examined by plagiarism identification software. This writing experiment used time tracking, human editing, and comparison software to examine the benefits and risks of using AI to assist in scientific writing. It showed that while AI may reduce total writing time, hallucinations and plagiarism were prevalent issues with this method and human editing was still necessary to ensure accuracy.
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.