ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Linguistic shifts in dental scientific writing in the large language model era.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integrity of scientific literature depends on transparent authorship and authentic communication of research findings. The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 introduced powerful AI writing assistance that may be changing how dental researchers write manuscripts. However, systematic evidence documenting this shift and its implications for research integrity remains limited. Traditional detection tools and self-reported surveys have proven unreliable, requiring alternative approaches to assess AI's influence on published literature.
objectiveTo detect and quantify linguistic changes in dental scientific abstracts by comparing pre-ChatGPT (2021) and post-ChatGPT (2025) periods, providing empirical evidence of AI adoption patterns and their implications for scientific communication integrity.
methodsWe analyzed 2,770 abstracts from six major dental journals using vocabulary-based linguistic analysis. Following computational linguistics methods validated in biomedical literature, we extracted six AI-associated features and computed composite detection scores. This observational text-based approach avoids reporting bias while providing quantifiable evidence of linguistic shifts.
resultsAI detection scores increased significantly across all journals (mean: 12.01 to 14.46; + 20.4%), with individual journal increases ranging from +10.0% to +34.5%. The mean number of AI marker words per abstract rose from 0.69 to 0.97 (+41.1%), while high-suspicion abstracts (score ≥ 20) increased from 18.0% to 25.8% (+43%). Changes were consistent across journal specialty, geography, and impact factor, suggesting field-wide adoption.
conclusionsDental scientific writing has undergone measurable linguistic changes coinciding with widespread AI availability. The consistency and magnitude of these changes raise questions about transparency in AI use, maintaining authorial voice, and preserving the integrity of scientific communication. These findings provide an empirical foundation for evidence-based policies on AI disclosure and appropriate use in academic publishing, grounded in observed changes to scientific communication rather than speculative concern.
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.