ReviewActas espanolas de psiquiatria2025
Reflections on the Potential and Risks of AI for Scientific Article Writing after the AI Endorsement by Some Scientific Publishers: Focusing on Scopus AI.
Review in Actas espanolas de psiquiatria, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Education of Prosthodontics and Implant Dentistry: A Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of ChatGPT3 in 2023 disrupted the field of artificial intelligence (AI). ChatGPT uses large language models (LLMs) but has no access to copyrighted material including scientific articles and books. This review is limited by the lack of access to: (1) prior peer-reviewed articles and (2) proprietary information owned by the companies. Despite these limitations, the article reviews the use of LLMs in the publishing of scientific articles. The first use was plagiarism software. The second use by the American Psychological Association and Elsevier helped their journal editors to screen articles before their review. These two publishers have in common a large number of copyrighted journals and textbooks but, more importantly, a database of article abstracts. Elsevier is the largest of the five large publishing houses and the only one with a database of article abstracts developed to compete with the bibliometric experts of the Web of Science. The third use and most relevant, Scopus AI, was announced on 16 January 2024, by Elsevier; a version of ChatGPT-3.5 was trained using Elsevier copyrighted material written since 2013. Elsevier's description suggests to the authors that Scopus AI can write review articles or the introductions of original research articles with no human intervention. The editors of non-Elsevier journals not willing to approve the use of Scopus AI for writing scientific articles have a problem on their hands; they will need to trust that the authors who have submitted articles have not lied and have not used Scopus AI at all.
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.