Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608485›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Evaluating a Large Language Model's Ability to Synthesize a Health Science Master's Thesis: Case Study.

Pål Joranger, Sara Rivenes Lafontan, Asgeir Brevik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Comparison of reference management software with new artificial intelligence-based tools.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pål JorangerDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 4 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, N-0130, Norway, 47 67236520.ORCID 0000-0001-6274-8039
Sara Rivenes LafontanDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 4 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, N-0130, Norway, 47 67236520.ORCID 0000-0001-7382-3022
Asgeir BrevikDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 4 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, N-0130, Norway, 47 67236520.ORCID 0009-0009-8892-4673

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) can aid students in mastering a new topic fast, but for the educational institutions responsible for assessing and grading the academic level of students, it can be difficult to discern whether a text has originated from a student's own cognition or has been synthesized by an LLM. Universities have traditionally relied on a submitted written thesis as proof of higher-level learning, on which to grant grades and diplomas. But what happens when LLMs are able to mimic the academic writing of subject matter experts? This is now a real dilemma. The ubiquitous availability of LLMs challenges trust in the master's thesis as evidence of subject matter comprehension and academic competencies. Objective: In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of rapid machine-generated papers against the standards of the health science master's program we are currently affiliated with. Methods: In an exploratory case study, we used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to generate 2 research papers as conceivable student submissions for master's thesis graduation from a health science master's program. One paper simulated a qualitative health science research project and another simulated a quantitative health science research project. Results: Using a stepwise approach, we prompted ChatGPT to (1) synthesize 2 credible datasets, and (2) generate 2 papers, that-in our judgment-would have been able to pass as credible medium-quality graduation research papers at the health science master's program the authors are currently affiliated with. It took 2.5 hours of iterative dialogue with ChatGPT to develop the qualitative paper and 3.5 hours to develop the quantitative paper. Making the synthetic datasets that served as a starting point for our ChatGPT-driven paper development took 1.5 and 16 hours for the qualitative and quantitative datasets, respectively. This included learning and prompt optimization, and for the quantitative dataset, it included the time it took to create tables, estimate relevant bivariate correlation coefficients, and prepare these coefficients to be read by ChatGPT. Conclusions: Our demonstration highlights the ease with which an LLM can synthesize research data, conduct scientific analyses, and produce credible research papers required for graduation from a master's program. A clear and well-written master's thesis, citing subject matter authorities and true to the expectations for academic writing, can no longer be regarded as solid proof of either extensive study or subject matter mastery. To uphold the integrity of academic standards and the value of university diplomas, we recommend that master's programs prioritize oral examinations and school exams. This shift is now crucial to ensure a fair and rigorous assessment of higher-order learning and abilities at the master's level.

Indexed as

Academic Dissertations as TopicLanguageHumansLarge Language ModelsChatGPThealth sciencelarge language modelLLMmaster’s thesisqualitativequantitative

Identifiers

PMID40608485
PMCPMC12244274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.