ArticleScientific reports2026
Human versus artificial intelligence: investigating ability of young academics from research and non-research institutions to identify ChatGPT-generated dental research abstracts.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT in academic writing raises concerns about research integrity and authorship transparency, including in dentistry. The aim of this study was to investigate whether young dental academicians from research and non-research universities can differentiate original abstracts from ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and to compare their performances, and accuracy with three AI-output detectors, and a similarity detector. In this study, six early-career academicians (≤ 2 years of academic experience) from 6 different universities reviewed 150 dental research abstracts (75 original and 75 ChatGPT-generated) under blinded conditions and assessed abstract quality using a previously developed rubric. The same abstracts were also evaluated using the GPT-2 Output Detector, Writefull GPT Detector, GPTZero, and Turnitin similarity detection. Blinded human reviewers and most AI tools made variable wrong assumptions. Correlation analyses showed significant positive associations between abstract type and all assessment variables, while similarity detection demonstrated an inverse relationship (p < 0.05). Overall, young academicians, regardless of institutional category, had difficulty identifying the origin of AI-generated abstracts, whereas GPTZero showed the highest discrimination accuracy (90.0%). This indicates that early-career status and current level of training/exposure to AI-assisted writing may hold greater significance than the institutional category alone. These findings suggest that relying on human judgment alone is insufficient for identifying AI-assisted academic text and that selected detection tools may support academic integrity safeguards as AI writing technologies continue to evolve.
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.