Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40764886›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025

Invited Response to "Writing an Abstract: Humans or ChatGPT?"

Sophia M Pressman, Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Antonio Jorge Forte

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sophia M PressmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Cesar A Gomez-CabelloDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA.
Antonio Jorge ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA. ajvforte@yahoo.com.br.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-7538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to Matsubara's commentary on our study of ChatGPT-generated abstracts, we clarify that our work represents an early exploration of AI's potential to support researchers in academic medicine. While AI has limitations, our findings suggest that tools like ChatGPT may assist with abstract writing. We emphasize the importance of responsible and transparent use. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Abstracting and IndexingWritingEvidence-Based MedicineGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansAcademic integrityArtificial intelligenceChatGPTLarge language modelsResearchScientific communication

Identifiers

PMID40764886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.