ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024
A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical paradox: PenWorld journal of methodology · 2026Review
- Large Language Models and the Future of Peer-Reviewed Medical Publishing: Challenges, Editorial Responses, and a Framework for Responsible Integration.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- What are the limits to biomedical research acceleration through general-purpose AI?Scientific reports · 2026Review
- Beyond Binary: A Machine Learning Framework for Interpreting Organismal Behavior in Cancer Diagnostics.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Large language models in biomedicine and health: current research landscape and future directions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- The impact of ChatGPT on human data collection: A case study involving typicality norming data.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Editorial - The Use of Large Language Models in Science: Opportunities and Challenges.Principles and practice of clinical research (2015) · 2023Article
- Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review.Research square · 2023Article
- To ChatGPT or not to ChatGPT: the use of artificial intelligence in writing scientific papers.Brain communications · 2023Article
- The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles.American journal of cancer research · 2023Review
- Generative artificial intelligence in ophthalmology research writing: A comprehensive review of applications, detection tools, and ethical considerations.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.