ArticleMedicine2025
Examining the frequency of artificial intelligence generated content in anesthesiology and intensive care journal publications: A cross sectional study.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)-based linguistic models has revolutionized academic writing, prompting concerns about integrity. In response, AI-powered text authenticity detectors have been developed. This study examines AI tool usage in anesthesiology and intensive care journals. 1268 articles from 86 journals in "Anesthesiology" and "Anesthesiology and Intensive Care" were analyzed using Copyleaks and ZeroGPT. English abstracts published between April 18 and May 18, 2023, were scrutinized. ZeroGPT and Copyleaks found average AI usage at 25.1% ± 27.5 and 10.5% ± 15.9, respectively. 16.8% of articles were "human-written," while 83.2% were "AI-assisted". AI assistance correlated positively with abstract length and was more common among nonnative English speakers (P < .001). It was also prevalent in high-impact and science citation index-indexed journals (P < .01; P < .001). This study underscores the widespread adoption of AI tools in academic writing, particularly among nonnative English authors and in high-impact journals, emphasizing the need for improved detection mechanisms and regulatory guidelines.
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.