ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
The impact of using ChatGPT on academic writing among medical undergraduates.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of generative artificial intelligence on clinical skills and knowledge acquisition in medical undergraduates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Agreement in Staging and Treatment Recommendations Among Clinicians, Text-Only Clinicians, DeepSeek-V3, and ChatGPT-4o for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Acceptance and use of GenAI among medical and health sciences students in Saudi Arabia: an extended TAM study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A Student-Centered Approach Towards Implementing Large Language Models (LLMs) in Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education: Qualitative Study of Student Experiences.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A scoping review of the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in health profession education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- From writing paragraphs to evaluating articles: academic vocabulary development in EFL health sciences students during the ChatGPT transition.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- AI anxiety and AI dependence among undergraduates: a moderated mediation model of AI self-efficacy and AI literacy.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of ChatGPT on orthopedic residents' scientific writing: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Research on the experience of utilizing artificial intelligence in nursing learning from the perspective of nursing students - a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- AI usage among medical students in Palestine: a cross-sectional study and demonstration of AI-assisted research workflows.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChatGPT is widely used for writing tasks, yet its effects on medical students' academic writing remain underexplored. This study aims to elucidate ChatGPT's impact on academic writing efficiency and quality among medical students, while also evaluating students' attitudes towards its use in academic writing.
methodsWe collected systematic reviews from 130 third-year medical students and administered a questionnaire to assess ChatGPT usage and student attitudes. Three independent reviewers graded the papers using EASE guidelines, and statistical analysis compared articles generated with or without ChatGPT assistance across various parameters, with rigorous quality control ensuring survey reliability and validity.
resultsIn this study, 33 students (25.8%) utilized ChatGPT for writing (ChatGPT group) and 95 (74.2%) did not (Control group). The ChatGPT group exhibited significantly higher daily technology use and prior experience with ChatGPT (
conclusionsIntegrating ChatGPT in medical academic writing, with proper guidance, improves efficiency and quality, illustrating artificial intelligence's potential in shaping medical education methodologies.
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.