ArticleMedicine2024
A thorough examination of ChatGPT-3.5 potential applications in medical writing: A preliminary study.
Article in Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 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
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Effects of combined diet and physical activity on glycemic control and body composition in male recreational athletes with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Trial
- Knowledge, Practice, and Socio-Behavioral Determinants of Physical Activity Among Tunisian Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Distinct Stress Appraisal Dimensions, Insomnia, and Physical Activity as Differential Pathways to Psychological Distress: A Cross-Sectional Study in Tunisian University Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Excess Relative Risk for Radiation-Induced Solid Thyroid Cancer Among Nuclear Medicine Healthcare Professionals: A Computational Modeling Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mechanical Signatures of Tibiofemoral Cartilage Degeneration Identified by Unconfined Compression Testing: Implications for Early Osteoarthritis Risk in Athletes.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Observational
- Sex-specific influence of maturity status on jumping performance in adolescents: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Maturation-Aware Machine Learning Framework for Screening the Nutritional Status of Adolescents.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Article
- The interrelationship among physical activity, smartphone addiction, loneliness, and sport motivation in Chinese college students: a cross-sectional network analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Review
- Generative artificial intelligence and large language models in sports medicine: a scoping review of applications, accuracy, and ethical implications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Toward autonomous artificial intelligence agents in sports science: a modular framework for development, validation, and implementation.Biology of sport · 2026Review
- Radiation emergency preparedness in the middle east: Public health consequences, water security vulnerabilities, and evidence-based countermeasures.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- School-based predictive contributors to six-minute walk test performance across pubertal stages: an explainable machine learning study in Tunisian adolescents.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- A generative AI multi-agent framework with integrated XAI governance for cancer diagnostics: from multi-omics interpretation to lifestyle risk stratification.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Early Prediction of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Polytrauma Patients Using Balanced Random Forest ML: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Chronic Fatigue Among Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Study at a University Hospital in North Africa.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in orthopedic research assistance: a resident's perspective.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective communication of scientific knowledge plays a crucial role in the advancement of medical research and health care. Technological advancements have introduced large language models such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), powered by artificial intelligence (AI), which has already shown promise in revolutionizing medical writing. This study aimed to conduct a detailed evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5's role in enhancing various aspects of medical writing. From May 10 to 12, 2023, the authors engaged in a series of interactions with ChatGPT-3.5 to evaluate its effectiveness in various tasks, particularly its application to medical writing, including vocabulary enhancement, text rewriting for plagiarism prevention, hypothesis generation, keyword generation, title generation, article summarization, simplification of medical jargon, transforming text from informal to scientific and data interpretation. The exploration of ChatGPT's functionalities in medical writing revealed its potential in enhancing various aspects of the writing process, demonstrating its efficiency in improving vocabulary usage, suggesting alternative phrasing, and providing grammar enhancements. While the results indicate the effectiveness of ChatGPT (version 3.5), the presence of certain imperfections highlights the current indispensability of human intervention to refine and validate outputs, ensuring accuracy and relevance in medical settings. The integration of AI into medical writing shows significant potential for improving clarity, efficiency, and reliability. This evaluation highlights both the benefits and limitations of using ChatGPT-3.5, emphasizing its ability to enhance vocabulary, prevent plagiarism, generate hypotheses, suggest keywords, summarize articles, simplify medical jargon, and transform informal text into an academic format. However, AI tools should not replace human expertise. It is crucial for medical professionals to ensure thorough human review and validation to maintain the accuracy and relevance of the content in case they eventually use AI as a supplementary resource in medical writing. Accepting this mutually symbiotic partnership holds the promise of improving medical research and patient outcomes, and it sets the stage for the fusion of AI and human knowledge to produce a novel approach to medical assessment. Thus, while AI can streamline certain tasks, experienced medical writers and researchers must perform final reviews to uphold high standards in medical communications.
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.