ArticleHeliyon2025
Knowledge, attitude, and perceptions of MENA researchers towards the use of ChatGPT in research: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of oral and maxillofacial surgeons towards the use of artificial intelligence in clinical practice and training: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Physicians' Knowledge, Perceptions and Use of Large Language Models in Clinical Practice:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly recognized for their potential to revolutionize research practices. However, there is a gap in understanding the perspectives of MENA researchers on ChatGPT. This study explores the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of ChatGPT utilization in research. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 369 MENA researchers. Participants provided demographic information and responded to questions about their knowledge of AI, their experience with ChatGPT, their attitudes toward technology, and their perceptions of the potential roles and benefits of ChatGPT in research. Results: The results indicate a moderate level of knowledge about ChatGPT, with a total score of 58.3 ± 19.6. Attitudes towards its use were generally positive, with a total score of 68.1 ± 8.1 expressing enthusiasm for integrating ChatGPT into their research workflow. About 56 % of the sample reported using ChatGPT for various applications. In addition, 27.6 % expressed their intention to use it in their research, while 17.3 % have already started using it in their research. However, perceptions varied, with concerns about accuracy, bias, and ethical implications highlighted. The results showed significant differences in knowledge scores based on gender ( Conclusion: MENA researchers demonstrate significant awareness and interest in integrating ChatGPT into their research workflow. Addressing concerns about reliability and ethical implications is essential for advancing scientific innovation in the MENA region.
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.