Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38472596›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024

Artificial intelligence in academic writing and clinical pharmacy education: consequences and opportunities.

Anita Elaine Weidmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anita Elaine WeidmannDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, Innsbruck University, Innrain 80, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria. anita.weidmann@uibk.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3670-2357
Universität Innsbruck · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current academic debate on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research and teaching has been ongoing since the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022. It mainly focuses on ethical considerations, academic integrity, authorship and the need for new legal frameworks. Time efficiencies may allow for more critical thinking, while ease of pattern recognition across large amounts of data may promote drug discovery, better clinical decision making and guideline development with resultant consequences for patient safety. AI is also prompting a re-evaluation of the nature of learning and the purpose of education worldwide. It challenges traditional pedagogies, forcing a shift from rote learning to more critical, analytical, and creative thinking skills. Despite this opportunity to re-think education concepts for pharmacy curricula several universities around the world have banned its use. This commentary summarizes the existing debate and identifies the consequences and opportunities for clinical pharmacy research and education.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEducation, PharmacyCurriculumHumansPharmacy ResearchWritingAcademicArtificial intelligenceClinical pharmacyEducation pharmacyIntelligence machine

Identifiers

PMID38472596
PMCPMC11133206
OpenAlexW4392692922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.