ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2025
Comparative Detector Analysis for the Identification of Academic Articles Synthesized by Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Ophthalmology.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objectives: The increasing use of large language models, such as ChatGPT, in academic writing has raised significant ethical concerns within the academic community. This study explores the potential challenges posed by the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce realistic, evidence-based academic texts and investigates whether these challenges can be effectively controlled. Methods: Three original articles in the field of ophthalmology were provided as input to ChatGPT-4o to generate introduction sections. A total of 50 introduction texts were synthesized from 150 original articles. These AI-generated texts were analyzed using AI detectors (GPTZero, Writer, CorrectorApp, and ZeroGPT) and a plagiarism detector. In addition, the ability of AI detectors to differentiate between original and AI-generated texts was evaluated. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in AI detector probabilities between original and AI-generated texts (p<0.001 for all detectors). GPTZero demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96% in distinguishing original from AI-generated texts, outperforming all other AI detectors. However, paraphrased AI-generated texts significantly reduced the detection accuracy of GPTZero (p<0.001). Conclusion: ChatGPT-4o demonstrated the ability to synthesize new texts with referenced citations within seconds, capable of bypassing plagiarism detectors. However, AI detectors showed limitations in achieving absolute accuracy and occasionally misclassified original texts. Even with the most accurate AI detectors, a simple paraphrasing method significantly compromised prediction accuracy, highlighting the need for improved detection strategies and ethical oversight.
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.