Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738210›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Use of large language models as artificial intelligence tools in academic research and publishing among global clinical researchers.

Tanisha Mishra, Edward Sutanto, Rini Rossanti, Nayana Pant, Anum Ashraf, Akshay Raut, Germaine Uwabareze, Ajayi Oluwatomiwa, Bushra Zeeshan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Large Language Models in Surgery: Promise, Pitfalls, and Practical Use.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Undergraduate Nursing Students' Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence in Academia.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2025
    Article
  16. The future of reviews writing in the AI era.Nature reviews. Chemistry · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tanisha MishraKasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1066-9678
Edward SutantoNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8852-5770
Rini RossantiDepartment of Child Health, Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital/Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-3824-9365
Nayana PantRoyal Free NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, Pond Street, London, NW32QG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2425-9995
Anum AshrafDepartment of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Allama Iqbal Medical College, Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0009-8165-2812
Akshay RautDepartment of Internal Medicine, Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, PA, 18840, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0210-989X
Germaine UwabarezeWorld Health Organization, Comoros Country Office, Moroni, Comoros.ORCID 0009-0006-1124-7211
Ajayi OluwatomiwaFederal Neuropsychiatric Hospital Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0003-0560-3807
Bushra ZeeshanDepartment of Dermatology, Niazi Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan. dr_bushrahassan@hotmail.com.ORCID 0009-0004-7692-8056

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With breakthroughs in Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence (AI), the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) in academic research has increased tremendously. Models such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) are used by researchers in literature review, abstract screening, and manuscript drafting. However, these models also present the attendant challenge of providing ethically questionable scientific information. Our study provides a snapshot of global researchers' perception of current trends and future impacts of LLMs in research. Using a cross-sectional design, we surveyed 226 medical and paramedical researchers from 59 countries across 65 specialties, trained in the Global Clinical Scholars' Research Training certificate program of Harvard Medical School between 2020 and 2024. Majority (57.5%) of these participants practiced in an academic setting with a median of 7 (2,18) PubMed Indexed published articles. 198 respondents (87.6%) were aware of LLMs and those who were aware had higher number of publications (p < 0.001). 18.7% of the respondents who were aware (n = 37) had previously used LLMs in publications especially for grammatical errors and formatting (64.9%); however, most (40.5%) did not acknowledge its use in their papers. 50.8% of aware respondents (n = 95) predicted an overall positive future impact of LLMs while 32.6% were unsure of its scope. 52% of aware respondents (n = 102) believed that LLMs would have a major impact in areas such as grammatical errors and formatting (66.3%), revision and editing (57.2%), writing (57.2%) and literature review (54.2%). 58.1% of aware respondents were opined that journals should allow for use of AI in research and 78.3% believed that regulations should be put in place to avoid its abuse. Seeing the perception of researchers towards LLMs and the significant association between awareness of LLMs and number of published works, we emphasize the importance of developing comprehensive guidelines and ethical framework to govern the use of AI in academic research and address the current challenges.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAdultBiomedical ResearchCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLanguageMaleNatural Language ProcessingPublishingResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesAcademic writingArtificial intelligenceBiomedical researchLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID39738210
PMCPMC11685435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.