ArticleJMA journal2026
Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Subtle Errors and Their Complex Consequences.
Article in JMA 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although artificial intelligence (AI; such as ChatGPT) can improve manuscript readability, AI-related false descriptions (so-called hallucinations) and incorrect reference retrieval have been repeatedly reported. We tested (1) whether ChatGPT, when provided with medically correct inputs, generates a manuscript containing medically incorrect statements-particularly whether it misunderstands or overlooks "subtle but important" medical issues-and (2) whether ChatGPT cites inappropriate references. We input bullet points on placenta percreta, tasked ChatGPT-5 with generating a mini-review, and asked it to confirm whether the output was medically correct. We introduced a small, deliberate trap. In percreta, a recent conceptual change has gained increased attention: this condition is considered to result from uterine abnormality rather than abnormal placental invasion. This etiopathological shift could be misinterpreted as implying "weaker adherence" and therefore "less difficult surgery," leading to the notion that percreta could be managed at secondary-level institutions. The ChatGPT-generated manuscript cited appropriate references and was almost medically correct, except for one critical issue: it stated that percreta could be managed in secondary-level institutions, which is incorrect and potentially dangerous. During the "confirmation" stage, ChatGPT raised a caution regarding this issue, but not in a definitive manner. An additional experiment was conducted on hypercholesterolemia. ChatGPT again failed to address an important issue, familial hypercholesterolemia, which requires a management strategy different from that for non-familial hypercholesterolemia. Overall, ChatGPT generated a linguistically appealing manuscript with largely correct context, but it produced incorrect and potentially dangerous statements in clinically critical areas. When incorrect statements are subtle rather than obvious, authors, journals, and readers may fail to recognize them. This is paradoxical: advances in AI may reduce "apparent" errors while generating less recognizable ones. When evaluating AI-assisted manuscripts, careful review by individuals with deep domain knowledge is mandatory.
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.