Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014250›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024

AI-generated text in otolaryngology publications: a comparative analysis before and after the release of ChatGPT.

Jonathan M Carnino, Nicholas Y K Chong, Henry Bayly, Lindsay R Salvati, Hardeep S Tiwana, Jessica R Levi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025
    Article
  6. AI in research and publication: prioritizing content over language.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jonathan M CarninoBoston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. jcarnino@bu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8908-7269
Nicholas Y K ChongBoston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Henry BaylyBoston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Lindsay R SalvatiBoston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Hardeep S TiwanaWashington State University Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Spokane, WA, USA.
Jessica R LeviBoston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

BUSPH Interdisciplinary Training Program for BiostatisticiansT32GM140972 · NIGMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Kathryn L Lunetta, Laura Forsberg White · 2021 to 2026
$1.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM140972
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study delves into the broader implications of artificial intelligence (AI) text generation technologies, including large language models (LLMs) and chatbots, on the scientific literature of otolaryngology. By observing trends in AI-generated text within published otolaryngology studies, this investigation aims to contextualize the impact of AI-driven tools that are reshaping scientific writing and communication.

methodsText from 143 original articles published in JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery was collected, representing periods before and after ChatGPT's release in November 2022. The text from each article's abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion were entered into ZeroGPT.com to estimate the percentage of AI-generated content. Statistical analyses, including T-Tests and Fligner-Killeen's tests, were conducted using R.

resultsA significant increase was observed in the mean percentage of AI-generated text post-ChatGPT release, especially in the abstract (from 34.36 to 46.53%, p = 0.004), introduction (from 32.43 to 45.08%, p = 0.010), and discussion sections (from 15.73 to 25.03%, p = 0.015). Publications of authors from non-English speaking countries demonstrated a higher percentage of AI-generated text.

conclusionThis study found that the advent of ChatGPT has significantly impacted writing practices among researchers publishing in JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, raising concerns over the accuracy of AI-created content and potential misinformation risks. This manuscript highlights the evolving dynamics between AI technologies, scientific communication, and publication integrity, emphasizing the urgent need for continued research in this dynamic field. The findings also suggest an increasing reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT, raising questions about their broader implications for scientific publishing.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceOtolaryngologyPeriodicals as TopicHumansPublishingWritingArtificial intelligence (AI)ChatGPTEthicsManuscript drafting

Identifiers

PMID39014250
PMCPMC11513233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.