ArticleHeliyon2024
Unveiling ChatGPT text using writing style.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing: Balancing Innovation and Efficiency with Integrity: Perspectives and Position Statements of Global Andrology Forum Expert Group.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Detecting "large language models fingerprint" for Japanese texts generated by six LLMs.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A stylometric machine learning framework for authorship attribution of ChatGPT and student generated texts.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
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
Extensive use of AI-generated texts culminated recently after the advent of large language models. Although the use of AI text generators, such as ChatGPT, is beneficial, it also threatens the academic level as students may resort to it. In this work, we propose a technique leveraging the intrinsic stylometric features of documents to detect ChatGPT-based plagiarism. The stylometric features were normalized and fed to classical classifiers, such as k-Nearest Neighbors, Decision Tree, and Naïve Bayes, as well as ensemble classifiers, such as XGBoost and Stacking. A thorough examination of the classifier was conducted by using Cross-Fold validation, hyperparameters tuning, and multiple training iterations. The results show the efficacy of both classical and ensemble learning classifiers in distinguishing between human and ChatGPT writing styles with a noteworthy performance of XGBoost where 100 % was achieved for accuracy, recall, and precision metrics. Moreover, the proposed XGBoost classifier outperformed the state-of-the-art result on the same dataset and same classifier highlighting the superiority of the proposed feature style extraction method over TF-IDF techniques. The ensemble learning classifiers were also applied to the generated dataset with mixed texts, where paragraphs are written by ChatGPT and humans. The results show that 98 % of the documents were classified correctly as either mixed or human. The last contribution consists in the authorship attribution of the paragraphs of a single document where the accuracy reached 92.3 %.
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.