ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Utilizing artificial intelligence in academic writing: an in-depth evaluation of a scientific review on fertility preservation written by ChatGPT-4.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of ChatGPT-5-generated surgical literature: the accuracy of a review on penile prosthesis implantation.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Evaluating local open-source large language models for data extraction from unstructured reports on mechanical thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2025Article
- The impact of using ChatGPT on academic writing among medical undergraduates.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Reviewer Experience Detecting and Judging Human Versus Artificial Intelligence Content: TheStroke · 2024Review
- Fertility preservation written by ChatGPT-4: correspondence.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the ability of ChatGPT-4 to generate a biomedical review article on fertility preservation.
methodsChatGPT-4 was prompted to create an outline for a review on fertility preservation in men and prepubertal boys. The outline provided by ChatGPT-4 was subsequently used to prompt ChatGPT-4 to write the different parts of the review and provide five references for each section. The different parts of the article and the references provided were combined to create a single scientific review that was evaluated by the authors, who are experts in fertility preservation. The experts assessed the article and the references for accuracy and checked for plagiarism using online tools. In addition, both experts independently scored the relevance, depth, and currentness of the ChatGPT-4's article using a scoring matrix ranging from 0 to 5 where higher scores indicate higher quality.
resultsChatGPT-4 successfully generated a relevant scientific article with references. Among 27 statements needing citations, four were inaccurate. Of 25 references, 36% were accurate, 48% had correct titles but other errors, and 16% were completely fabricated. Plagiarism was minimal (mean = 3%). Experts rated the article's relevance highly (5/5) but gave lower scores for depth (2-3/5) and currentness (3/5).
conclusionChatGPT-4 can produce a scientific review on fertility preservation with minimal plagiarism. While precise in content, it showed factual and contextual inaccuracies and inconsistent reference reliability. These issues limit ChatGPT-4 as a sole tool for scientific writing but suggest its potential as an aid in the writing process.
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.