ArticleScientific reports2025
Classifying human vs. AI text with machine learning and explainable transformer models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of AI-generated text from models such as ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 has raised critical challenges in verifying content authenticity and ensuring ethical use of language technologies. This study presents a comprehensive framework for distinguishing between human-written and GPT-generated text using a combination of machine learning, sequential deep learning, and transformer-based models. A balanced dataset of 20,000 samples was compiled, incorporating diverse linguistic and topical sources. Traditional algorithms and sequential architectures (LSTM, GRU, BiLSTM, BiGRU) were compared against advanced transformer models, including BERT, DistilBERT, ALBERT, and RoBERTa. Experimental findings revealed that RoBERTa achieved the highest performance (Accuracy = 96.1%), outperforming all baselines. Post-hoc temperature scaling (T = 1.476) improved calibration, while threshold tuning (t = 0.957) enhanced precision for high-stakes applications. McNemar's test with Holm correction confirmed the statistical significance (p < 0.05) of RoBERTa's superiority. Efficiency analysis showed optimal trade-offs between accuracy and latency, and 20% pruning demonstrated sustainability potential. Furthermore, LIME and SHAP explainability analyses highlighted linguistic distinctions between AI-generated and human-authored text, and fine-grained error evaluation confirmed model robustness across text lengths. In conclusion, RoBERTa emerges as a reliable, interpretable, and computationally efficient model for detecting AI-generated content.
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.