ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
ChatGPT in medical writing: A game-changer or a gimmick?
Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Writing and Rating Restorative Dentistry Essays.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Utilizing Artificial Intelligence to create narrative literature reviews.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Review
- Review
- Evaluating ChatGPT-4's Performance in Identifying Radiological Anatomy in FRCR Part 1 Examination Questions.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- From data extraction to analysis: a comparative study of ELISE capabilities in scientific literature.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Academic writing and critical appraisal in physiology education: discerning the benefits of using large language models as knowledge receivers or knowledge providers.Current research in physiology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OpenAI's ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a chatbot that answers questions and performs writing tasks in a conversational tone. Within months of release, multiple sectors are contemplating the varied applications of this chatbot, including medicine, education, and research, all of which are involved in medical communication and scientific publishing. Medical writers and academics use several artificial intelligence (AI) tools and software for research, literature survey, data analyses, referencing, and writing. There are benefits of using different AI tools in medical writing. However, using chatbots for medical communications pose some major concerns such as potential inaccuracies, data bias, security, and ethical issues. Perceived incorrect notions also limit their use. Moreover, ChatGPT can also be challenging if used incorrectly and for irrelevant tasks. If used appropriately, ChatGPT will not only upgrade the knowledge of the medical writer but also save time and energy that could be directed toward more creative and analytical areas requiring expert skill sets. This review introduces chatbots, outlines the progress in ChatGPT research, elaborates the potential uses of ChatGPT in medical communications along with its challenges and limitations, and proposes future research perspectives. It aims to provide guidance for doctors, researchers, and medical writers on the uses of ChatGPT 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.