Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41207288›Full record

ArticleAnnals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism2025

ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia.

Jeong-Moo Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism, 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. Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption inOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026
    Article
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

1 author.

Jeong-Moo LeeDivision of HBP Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Korea Health Industry Development InstituteMinistry of Health and Welfare HI23C159101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of large language models (LLMs) in academic research has transformed traditional research methodologies. This review investigates the current state, applications, and limitations of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, in medical and scientific research. I performed a systematic review of recent literature and LLM development reports in artificial intelligence-assisted research tools, including commercial LLM services (GPT-4o, Claude 3, Gemini Pro) and specialized research platforms (Genspark, Scispace). I evaluated their performance, applications, and limitations across stages of the research process. Recent advancements in LLMs shows potential for improving research efficiency, particularly in literature review, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Performance comparison revealed varying strengths: GPT-4o and o1 outperformed in the overall area, Claude 3 in writing and coding, and Gemini Pro in multimodal processing. Therefore, it is important to choose and use each model wisely according to its advantages. However, hallucination risks, inherent biases, plagiarism concerns, and privacy issues are concerns in LLMs. The emergence of Retrieval-Augmented Generation models and specialized research tools has improved accuracy and current information access. LLMs offer effective support for research productivity, but they should serve as complementary tools rather than primary research drivers. The successful application of these tools depends on a thorough understanding of their limitations, strict adherence to ethical guidelines, and preservation of researcher autonomy.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBiomedical researchGenerative pre-trained transformerNatural language processingResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID41207288
PMCPMC12597148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.