ArticleJMA journal2025
Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Addressing Untouched Threats.
Article in JMA journal, 2025. 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.
- A Small Hope for Journals: Declaring Philosophy for Artificial Intelligence Use in Writing.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Use in Medical Writing: On the Meaning and Limits of Disclosure.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Maintaining the Human Voice in Scientific Writing in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Does a Human-drafted Letter Edited by Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer Escape Detection by Artificial Intelligence Detectors?JMA journal · 2026Article
- Medical Education and Artificial Intelligence: Some Suggestions.JMA journal · 2026Article
- Writing and artificial intelligence:Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Rapidly Rising Preference among New-entry Medical Students for Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Reflective Reports.JMA 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advantages and disadvantages of the use of generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, in medical writing have been widely discussed; however, two concerns remain largely unexplored. The first involves "human touch," such as personal anecdotes and experiences. This touch often distinguishes human-written papers from those generated by ChatGPT as ChatGPT cannot independently access personal experiences. Although ChatGPT may mimic humanlike behavior, including the incorporation of a human touch, it lacks genuine emotions. With the lack of established guidelines on the acceptable levels of ChatGPT use and imperfect detection tools, many authors fear that their work could be perceived as overly reliant on ChatGPT. I worry that writers may artificially insert forced personal touches simply to assert their own writing. The second concern is the authors' worry and doubt about whether to use ChatGPT and, if so, to what extent, which may disrupt their reflective and quiet writing process. While I acknowledge the lack of empirical data, I offer practical suggestions to balance the benefits of ChatGPT assistance and the preservation of the integrity of human writing in medical publications.
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.