ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
The impact of ChatGPT on orthopedic residents' scientific writing: A quasi-experimental study.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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.
- Impact of an AI workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among surgeons at an international abdominal wall surgery congress.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Scientific writing is essential for orthopedic residents, enabling academic contributions and evidence-based practice. However, challenges such as time constraints, lack of training, and language barriers hinder their writing. AI-based tools like ChatGPT offer potential solutions to improve writing efficiency and quality. This study evaluates the impact of ChatGPT on orthopedic residents' scientific writing by assessing their performance before and after AI assistance in a single cohort. Methods: Thirty-six orthopedic residents first underwent structured training in scientific writing. They then wrote an article within six weeks without AI. In the second phase, they used ChatGPT to write another article over six weeks. Articles were assessed based on six criteria: understanding article writing, identifying research problems, knowledge of research types, understanding research methods, mastering writing techniques, and using correct language. Results: Following the AI intervention in, writing significantly improved residents' ability to understand article writing (4.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.1 ± 0.8, p < 0.001), master writing techniques (4.4 ± 0.6 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9, p < 0.001), and use correct language (4.6 ± 0.5 vs. 2.6 ± 1.0, p < 0.001). Following the AI writing intervention, residents had slightly higher scores in identifying research problems, understanding research models, and knowledge of research types, these differences were not statistically significant. Despite improvements in language quality and article structure, AI-generated content lacked originality and critical depth. Conclusion: ChatGPT enhances writing efficiency and quality but does not replace critical thinking and originality. AI should supplement, not replace, human oversight in scientific writing. Integrating AI-assisted writing into medical education, alongside proper research methodology training, may optimize benefits for orthopedic residents.
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.