ArticleCroatian medical journal2026
Can artificial intelligence create human touch in medical writing? A pilot study.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess whether ChatGPT can autonomously generate and select "human touch" elements (anecdotes, beliefs, and old sayings) and produce writing comparable to human-authored manuscripts.
methodsA disagreement letter was composed and then tasked ChatGPT-5 with writing a new disagreement letter. The model was instructed to select suitable anecdotes from a candidate list and generate new ones. Both letters were compared. Eight experienced researchers independently assessed whether the letters were appealing.
resultsChatGPT was able to select appropriate elements from the candidate list and, importantly, generate new ones. The human-generated letter was found to be more appealing by five of eight reviewers, and the ChatGPT-generated letter by three reviewers. None of the researchers reported that they found the use of human touch inappropriate or disruptive. Conclusion Although a single case was studied, these findings may help inform reflection on the use of LLMs in medical writing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42104646PMC13176933What 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.