ReviewBrazilian dental journal2025
The Future of Scientific Writing: AI Tools, Benefits, and Ethical Implications.
Review in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical guide to structuring the Discussion section in clinical and epidemiological studies.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Medical and Dental Education: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of AI-Generated and Faculty-Authored Prosthodontic Materials.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Humanization of AI-generated abstracts in oral radiology: Role of chatbots and dedicated platforms.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Advancing a Hybrid Decision-Making Model in Anesthesiology: Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Perioperative Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) transforms scientific writing by improving efficiency, accessibility, and quality. This study evaluated the applications, benefits, and challenges of AI tools, including Elicit, Perplexity, Consensus, ChatGPT, and Grammarly, in the literature review, information organization, and textual clarity enhancement. A narrative review and practical analysis were conducted, assessing the tools based on synthesis capabilities, accessibility, and accuracy. Results showed that AI tools optimize literature analysis and enhance the clarity of scientific texts, particularly for non-native English-speaking researchers. However, limitations include technical inaccuracies, excessive standardization of writing style, and ethical concerns regarding authorship and accountability. The study concludes that while AI can significantly support scientific writing, its adoption should be accompanied by stringent human oversight and adherence to ethical guidelines to maintain academic integrity.
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.