Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38879443›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring.

Milton Pividori, Casey S Greene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Surgical paradox: PenWorld journal of methodology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Large language models in biomedicine and health: current research landscape and future directions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Editorial - The Use of Large Language Models in Science: Opportunities and Challenges.Principles and practice of clinical research (2015) · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Milton PividoriDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3035-4403
Casey S GreeneDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO 80045, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8713-9213

Funding

Novel computational strategies to deconvolute co-occurring conditions in Down syndromeR01HD109765 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI James Christopher Costello, Casey S Greene · 2022 to 2026
$4.1M
Network-based algorithms for target identification and drug repositioning from genetic associationsR01HG010067 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GREENE, CASEY S · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
Computational approaches to characterize heterogeneity and improve risk stratification in complex disease phenotypesR00HG011898 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI PIVIDORI, MILTON · 2023 to 2025
$747k
Computational approaches to characterize heterogeneity and improve risk stratification in complex disease phenotypesK99HG011898 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI PIVIDORI, MILTON · 2022 to 2022
$121k
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation G-2023-20989Chan Zuckerberg InitiativeNHGRI NIH HHS K99/R00 HG011898NHGRI NIH HHS R00 HG011898NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG010067NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD109765The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation GBMF4552
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInvestigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. MATERIALS AND

methodsFor this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript.

resultsOur results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text.

conclusionsGiven the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNatural Language ProcessingAuthorshipHumansPublishingWritingartificial intelligencelarge language modelsManubotscholarly publishing

Identifiers

PMID38879443
PMCPMC11339502

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.