ArticlePloS one2024
The state of artificial intelligence in medical research: A survey of corresponding authors from top medical journals.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical paradox: PenWorld journal of methodology · 2026Review
- Deviations between registered protocols and published systematic reviews in high-impact anesthesiology and pain medicine journals: a cross-sectional analysis.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026Article
- Patient Perceptions on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Creating Clinical Research Documents: Survey Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Identifying Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Oncology: Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Using ClinicalTrials.gov.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- How large language models will be regulated in academia.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Article
- Clearing the Mist: The Distinct Roles of Transparency and Explainability for Using AI in Drug and Device Development.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Journals' Guidelines Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Manuscript Writing.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Article
- Advancements in Artificial Intelligence for Kidney Transplantology: A Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Predictive Models.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Reshaping Anesthesia with Artificial Intelligence: From Concept to Reality.Anesthesia and critical care (Houston, Tex.) · 2025Article
- Will AI revolutionize literature reviews?Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables machines to understand and respond to human language through Large Language Models (LLMs)‥ These models have diverse applications in fields such as medical research, scientific writing, and publishing, but concerns such as hallucination, ethical issues, bias, and cybersecurity need to be addressed. To understand the scientific community's understanding and perspective on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research and authorship, a survey was designed for corresponding authors in top medical journals. An online survey was conducted from July 13th, 2023, to September 1st, 2023, using the SurveyMonkey web instrument, and the population of interest were corresponding authors who published in 2022 in the 15 highest-impact medical journals, as ranked by the Journal Citation Report. The survey link has been sent to all the identified corresponding authors by mail. A total of 266 authors answered, and 236 entered the final analysis. Most of the researchers (40.6%) reported having moderate familiarity with artificial intelligence, while a minority (4.4%) had no associated knowledge. Furthermore, the vast majority (79.0%) believe that artificial intelligence will play a major role in the future of research. Of note, no correlation between academic metrics and artificial intelligence knowledge or confidence was found. The results indicate that although researchers have varying degrees of familiarity with artificial intelligence, its use in scientific research is still in its early phases. Despite lacking formal AI training, many scholars publishing in high-impact journals have started integrating such technologies into their projects, including rephrasing, translation, and proofreading tasks. Efforts should focus on providing training for their effective use, establishing guidelines by journal editors, and creating software applications that bundle multiple integrated tools into a single platform.
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.