ArticlePloS one2026
Comparative analysis of text readability and writing styles in AI-generated vs. Human-written academic abstracts.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research article abstracts are vital in scientific publications for readers to assess a study's significance. The increasing use of AI tools, such as Kimi, ChatGPT and DeepSeek, to generate abstracts raises concerns about their readability and writing styles compared to human-written ones. The study aims to compare the differences in text readability and writing styles between human-written against AI-generated abstracts. A total of 150 abstracts of high-impact journal articles in the field of linguistics and computer science, 75 from each discipline, and another 150 AI-generated abstracts from the same corpus of articles served as the source texts for analysis. The Readability Scoring System, a computational tool, yielded readability and writing style metrics, while expert evaluation was performed to assess the quality of AI-generated academic abstracts. The quantitative data generated were analysed using SPSS 27 with non-parametric statistical methods. Key findings revealed: (1) AI-generated abstracts exhibited significantly lower readability across eight metrics, indicating greater complexity and lower readability; (2) Discipline-specific analysis showed five differing metrics in linguistics and eight in computer science; (3) Interdisciplinary comparisons revealed non-significant differences across nine readability metrics, highlighting AI's potential to mimic natural writing. However, it still faces challenges in generating lexically diverse content. These results underscored the current limitations of AI in generating readable and human-like abstracts, especially in technical fields.
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.