ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of an AI-Generated Case Report With a Human-Written Case Report: Practical Considerations for AI-Assisted Medical Writing.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Manuscript Writing: Tips and Traps.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Gotcha GPT: Ensuring the Integrity in Academic Writing.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Reader's digest version of scientific writing: comparative evaluation of summarization capacity between large language models and medical students in analyzing scientific writing in sleep medicine.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe utility of ChatGPT has recently caused consternation in the medical world. While it has been utilized to write manuscripts, only a few studies have evaluated the quality of manuscripts generated by AI (artificial intelligence).
objectiveWe evaluate the ability of ChatGPT to write a case report when provided with a framework. We also provide practical considerations for manuscript writing using AI.
methodsWe compared a manuscript written by a blinded human author (10 years of medical experience) with a manuscript written by ChatGPT on a rare presentation of a common disease. We used multiple iterations of the manuscript generation request to derive the best ChatGPT output. Participants, outcomes, and measures: 22 human reviewers compared the manuscripts using parameters that characterize human writing and relevant standard manuscript assessment criteria, viz., scholarly impact quotient (SIQ). We also compared the manuscripts using the "average perplexity score" (APS), "burstiness score" (BS), and "highest perplexity of a sentence" (GPTZero parameters to detect AI-generated content).
resultsThe human manuscript had a significantly higher quality of presentation and nuanced writing (p<0.05). Both manuscripts had a logical flow. 12/22 reviewers were able to identify the AI-generated manuscript (p<0.05), but 4/22 reviewers wrongly identified the human-written manuscript as AI-generated. GPTZero software erroneously identified four sentences of the human-written manuscript to be AI-generated.
conclusionThough AI showed an ability to highlight the novelty of the case report and project a logical flow comparable to the human manuscript, it could not outperform the human writer on all parameters. The human manuscript showed a better quality of presentation and more nuanced writing. The practical considerations we provide for AI-assisted medical writing will help to better utilize AI in manuscript 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.