ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025
Can artificial intelligence generate scientific discussion that passes peer review for publication in a high-impact orthopaedic journal?
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 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.
- Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is huge interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the production and assessment of academic material; however, the role of AI remains unclear.
aimThe purpose of this study was to perform a reviewer-blinded assessment of the quality of scientific discussion generated by an advanced AI language model (ChatGPT-4, Open AI) and determine whether this could be recommended for high-impact journal publication.
methodsThe introduction, methods and results sections of a recently published article from a high-impact journal were input into a current AI model. The AI application then produced a discussion and conclusion based on the provided text using a standardized prompt. Six experienced blinded reviewers scored all five sections of the hybrid article. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess significant differences between scores of each section. Reviewers recommended a decision regarding the suitability of the article for publication.
resultsAI composed a scientific discussion and conclusion. The median score was 80 (IQR 70-90) for introduction, 77.5 (IQR 70-90) for methods, 82.5 (IQR 50-90) for results, 60 (IQR 40-75) for discussion and 60 (IQR 40-80) for the conclusion. The median scores for the AI-generated sections were non-significantly lower than other sections (p = 0.37). The majority of reviewers (5/6, 83%) recommended "acceptance for publication after major revision". One reviewer recommended "resubmission with no guarantee of acceptance". There were no recommendations for rejection.
conclusionCurrent AI large language models are now capable of generating content that passes experienced peer review and is acceptable for publication in a high-impact orthopaedic journal, after revision. There are still many concerns regarding the integration of AI into the process of scientific writing, mainly the tendency of AI to rely on advanced pattern recognition and fabricated or inadequate references. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.