Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42444255›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of surgery2026

Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: A Practical and Ethical Framework for Surgical Research and Publication.

S R Thomson, B A Bassett, J E J Krige

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S R ThomsonDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9485-997X
B A BassettMIND Institute and School of Computer Science and Applied Maths, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa School for Data Science and Computational Thinking, Stellenbosch University, South Africa Neuroscience Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7700-1069
J E J KrigeDepartment of Surgery, University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7057-9156

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming surgical research and medical publishing by changing how clinicians discover, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate scientific evidence. Despite widespread adoption, practical guidance on the responsible integration of AI into academic writing remains limited, particularly as large language models (LLMs) and emerging AI systems become increasingly sophisticated.

methodsThis narrative review examines the contemporary AI ecosystem relevant to medical writing, including LLMs, retrieval-augmented systems, structured evidence extraction platforms, citation analytics tools, AI-enhanced academic databases, and emerging agentic AI systems. Current evidence relating to AI-assisted manuscript preparation, ethical considerations, governance, confidentiality, reproducibility, and scientific integrity was reviewed. A practical workflow integrating literature discovery, evidence extraction, synthesis, citation validation, and editorial refinement is proposed.

resultsAI can substantially improve the efficiency, organization, clarity, and consistency of manuscript preparation while supporting evidence retrieval, synthesis, and editorial refinement. However, responsible use requires awareness of important limitations, including hallucinated references, publication bias amplification, confidentiality risks, language weighting, and the inability of current LLMs to distinguish reliably between truth and plausibility. The review also highlights the increasing integration of academic databases with AI-assisted retrieval and synthesis, together with the emergence of agentic research systems capable of performing increasingly complex scientific workflows under human supervision.

conclusionsAI should be regarded as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, scientific reasoning and scholarly judgment. When used transparently and under expert supervision, AI can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical writing while preserving the central intellectual responsibilities of authorship, interpretation, verification, and accountability. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous, maintaining rigorous human oversight will become progressively more important.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiomedical ResearchGeneral SurgeryMedical WritingPublishingGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language Modelsacademic publishingartificial intelligenceethicsgenerative AIlarge language modelsmedical writingsurgical research

Identifiers

PMID42444255
PMCPMC13576536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.