ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2025
ChatGPT applications in academic writing: a review of potential, limitations, and ethical challenges.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Unwanted scenario of medical journals' future: Artificial intelligence and medical writing.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article systematically reviewed 327 documents in the core collection of the Web of Science database regarding ChatGPT applications in the writing domain. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the latest progress and potential applications. ChatGPT demonstrates significant potential in overcoming writing anxiety, improving writing efficiency, generating initial scientific papers, and assisting researchers and students in giving feedback. However, it still faces significant challenges in data accuracy and the ethics of generated content, including inaccurate or outdated information, plagiarism risks, gender or race biases, etc. Authorship verification is particularly important for academic writing and publishing as it relates to objectivity, accuracy, and fairness. Future studies need to explore how to address these challenges through improvements at the technical and policy levels, ensuring that ChatGPT promotes the sustainable development and application of academic writing while adhering to ethical standards.
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.