ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
The missing disclosure: is generative AI use in bioethics scholarship going largely unreported?
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI literacy and ethical attitudes toward AI in medical students: evidence from a structural model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
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
introductionAlthough much has been written about how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may affect bioethics, there is limited research on its use in bioethics scholarship. The objectives of our study are (i) to assess the extent to which GenAI is being used in the production of bioethics scholarship and (ii) to analyze how such utilization is described when disclosed.
methods20 bioethics journals were selected based on Google Scholar’s 2024 H5-index rankings. All publications from these journals’ 2024 volumes were reviewed for disclosure of GenAI use. In parallel, we examined each journal’s and publisher’s stated policies regarding GenAI-generated content, classifying them as permissive or prohibitive. The frequency and contextual framing of GenAI-utilization acknowledgements were analyzed.
resultsOf 1,808 publications, only 12 articles across five journals included a reference to GenAI use or non-use. Among the 12 mentions, nine disclosed GenAI utilization, while three stated non-utilization. The nine utilization acknowledgments appeared in different sections of the papers, with ChatGPT being the most frequently cited GenAI model and “tool” the most commonly used descriptor.
conclusionDrawing on wider research trends, a disclosure rate of at least 10% was expected; however, the observed rate was under 1% and may reflect limited uptake, underreporting, or both. This finding raises important questions about transparency, methodological reporting standards, and the evolving norms of scholarly practice within the field of bioethics. We recommend clearer standards for when, how, and where GenAI use should be disclosed.
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.