ArticleScientific reports2025
Cross-lingual effects of AI-generated content on human work.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Assessing AI-Generated Autism Information for Healthcare Use: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Geographic Evaluation of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, especially large language models (LLMs), have permeated human work around the globe, but how effective is workers' usage and application of AI-generated content across language settings? This research examines the quality of (1) AI-generated business recommendations in English, Arabic, and Chinese and (2) business emails written by human participants in those languages. In Study 1, trained evaluators rated the quality of AI-generated content. Study 2 is a randomized experiment in which 480 human participants (160 in each language setting) wrote emails to address business issues, with or without the help of AI-generated content. Trained evaluators then rated the quality of those emails. This research finds that the AI-generated responses were of lower quality in Arabic and Chinese than in English. Importantly, human participants' usage of AI-generated contentin email-writing was associated with less actionable and less creative work output in Arabic and Chinese than in English. Non-English participants were particularly disadvantaged when dealing with more technical work tasks (e.g., tasks related to scientific discovery or product design). These findings underscore the need for more language-inclusive LLMs to support workers worldwide, as current technologies may inadvertently widen the productivity gap between English and non-English speakers, particularly in more technical domains.
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.