Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 16-01-2024 | Artificial Intelligence

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles

Authors: Melissa A. Kacena, Lilian I. Plotkin, Jill C. Fehrenbacher

Published in: Current Osteoporosis Reports | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

With the recent explosion in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and specifically ChatGPT, we sought to determine whether ChatGPT could be used to assist in writing credible, peer-reviewed, scientific review articles. We also sought to assess, in a scientific study, the advantages and limitations of using ChatGPT for this purpose. To accomplish this, 3 topics of importance in musculoskeletal research were selected: (1) the intersection of Alzheimer’s disease and bone; (2) the neural regulation of fracture healing; and (3) COVID-19 and musculoskeletal health. For each of these topics, 3 approaches to write manuscript drafts were undertaken: (1) human only; (2) ChatGPT only (AI-only); and (3) combination approach of #1 and #2 (AI-assisted). Articles were extensively fact checked and edited to ensure scientific quality, resulting in final manuscripts that were significantly different from the original drafts. Numerous parameters were measured throughout the process to quantitate advantages and disadvantages of approaches.

Recent Findings

Overall, use of AI decreased the time spent to write the review article, but required more extensive fact checking. With the AI-only approach, up to 70% of the references cited were found to be inaccurate. Interestingly, the AI-assisted approach resulted in the highest similarity indices suggesting a higher likelihood of plagiarism. Finally, although the technology is rapidly changing, at the time of study, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 rendering identification of recent articles impossible. Therefore, all literature published past the cutoff date was manually provided to ChatGPT, rendering approaches #2 and #3 identical for contemporary citations. As a result, for the COVID-19 and musculoskeletal health topic, approach #2 was abandoned midstream due to the extensive overlap with approach #3.

Summary

The main objective of this scientific study was to see whether AI could be used in a scientifically appropriate manner to improve the scientific writing process. Indeed, AI reduced the time for writing but had significant inaccuracies. The latter necessitates that AI cannot currently be used alone but could be used with careful oversight by humans to assist in writing scientific review articles.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Huang J, Tan M. The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am J Cancer Res. 2023;13(4):1148–54.PubMedCentralPubMed Huang J, Tan M. The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: writing better scientific review articles. Am J Cancer Res. 2023;13(4):1148–54.PubMedCentralPubMed
7.
go back to reference Chen TJ. ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing. J Chin Med Assoc. 2023;86(4):351–3.CrossRefADSPubMed Chen TJ. ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing. J Chin Med Assoc. 2023;86(4):351–3.CrossRefADSPubMed
8.
go back to reference Altmäe S, Sola-Leyva A, Salumets A. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe? Reprod Biomed Online. 2023;47(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMed Altmäe S, Sola-Leyva A, Salumets A. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: a friend or a foe? Reprod Biomed Online. 2023;47(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023;15(2): e35179.PubMedCentralPubMed Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023;15(2): e35179.PubMedCentralPubMed
11.
go back to reference Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):75.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):75.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
24.
go back to reference Athaluri SA, Manthena SV, Kesapragada V, et al. Exploring the boundaries of reality: investigating the phenomenon of artificial intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references. Cureus. 2023;15(4): e37432.PubMedCentralPubMed Athaluri SA, Manthena SV, Kesapragada V, et al. Exploring the boundaries of reality: investigating the phenomenon of artificial intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references. Cureus. 2023;15(4): e37432.PubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles
Authors
Melissa A. Kacena
Lilian I. Plotkin
Jill C. Fehrenbacher
Publication date
16-01-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1544-1873
Electronic ISSN: 1544-2241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00852-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Current Osteoporosis Reports 1/2024 Go to the issue