ArticleCroatian medical journal2024
Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can artificial intelligence create human touch in medical writing? A pilot study.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- From chaos to symbiosis: exploring adaptive co-evolution strategies for generative AI and research integrity systems.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- 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
- Comparing ChatGPT 4.0's Performance in Interpreting Thyroid Nodule Ultrasound Reports Using ACR-TI-RADS 2017: Analysis Across Different Levels of Ultrasound User Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The role of large language models in the peer-review process: opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Review
- Is perfect prompting possible for chatbots? In Reply to: Comparing ChatGPT's ability between writing versus reviewing papers: Then what?Croatian medical journal · 2024Article
- Comparing ChatGPT's ability to write and review papers: then what?Croatian medical journal · 2024Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles.
methodsThis study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles.
resultsChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes.
conclusionWhile ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38706235PMC11074943What 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.