ArticleJMIR medical education2024
The Ability of ChatGPT in Paraphrasing Texts and Reducing Plagiarism: A Descriptive Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in endoscopy and colonoscopy: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of global research trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating AI-Generated Patient Education Guides: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Deepseek.Cureus · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular procedures: a bibliometric and visual analysis study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence applications in cardiovascular imaging: trends, impact, and emerging research areas.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Delving into the Practical Applications and Pitfalls of Large Language Models in Medical Education: Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI has garnered significant attention. Among its capabilities, paraphrasing stands out. Objective: This study aims to investigate the satisfactory levels of plagiarism in the paraphrased text produced by this chatbot. Methods: Three texts of varying lengths were presented to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was then instructed to paraphrase the provided texts using five different prompts. In the subsequent stage of the study, the texts were divided into separate paragraphs, and ChatGPT was requested to paraphrase each paragraph individually. Lastly, in the third stage, ChatGPT was asked to paraphrase the texts it had previously generated. Results: The average plagiarism rate in the texts generated by ChatGPT was 45% (SD 10%). ChatGPT exhibited a substantial reduction in plagiarism for the provided texts (mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.48; P<.001). Furthermore, when comparing the second attempt with the initial attempt, a significant decrease in the plagiarism rate was observed (mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; P<.001). The number of paragraphs in the texts demonstrated a noteworthy association with the percentage of plagiarism, with texts consisting of a single paragraph exhibiting the lowest plagiarism rate (P<.001). Conclusions: Although ChatGPT demonstrates a notable reduction of plagiarism within texts, the existing levels of plagiarism remain relatively high. This underscores a crucial caution for researchers when incorporating this chatbot into their work.
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.