Identification of Human-Generated vs AI-Generated Research Abstracts by Health Care Professionals

Dennis Ren,Andrew James Tagg,Helena Wilcox,Damian Roland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.0760

2024-04-29

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:This survey study assesses the ability of health care professionals to discern whether abstracts were written by investigators or by an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot.

pediatrics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Human versus machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology

Evelyn T. Pan,Maria Florian-Rodriguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.045

IF: 9.8

2024-05-07

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:Background ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence (AI) large language model, has allowed for sophisticated AI technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of AI within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT's writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship. Objectives We hypothesize that human reviewers and AI detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and AI-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We additionally suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and AI-generated text. Study Design Twenty-five articles published in high impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding AI-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and AI-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or AI-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available AI detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks and were assessed for writing errors and quality by AI writing assistant Grammarly. Results One hundred fifty-seven reviews of 25 original and 25 AI-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows. Fifty-seven percent of original abstracts and 42.3% of AI-generated abstracts were correctly identified for an average of 49.7% across all abstracts. All three AI detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely be AI-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero 5.8 vs 73.3%, p<0.001; Originality 10.9 vs 98.1%, p<0.001; Copyleaks 18.6 vs 58.2%, p<0.001). The performance of the three AI detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (p=0.03), original abstracts (p<0.001), and AI-generated abstracts (p<0.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than AI abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1, p=0.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8, p<0.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3, p<0.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1, p=0.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6, p=0.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2, p=0.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0, p=0.005). Conclusions Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing due to AI's ability to generate tremendously realistic text. AI detection software improve identification of AI-generated writing but still lack complete accuracy and require programmatic improvements in order to achieve optimal detection. As reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect AI-generated pieces, clear guidelines for reporting AI use by authors and implementing AI detection software in the review process will need to be established as AI chatbots gain more widespread use.

obstetrics & gynecology
Identification of ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts Within Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Poses a Challenge for Reviewers

Ryan D Stadler,Suleiman Y Sudah,Michael A Moverman,Patrick J Denard,Xavier A Duralde,Grant E Garrigues,Christopher S Klifto,Jonathan C Levy,Surena Namdari,Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo,Mariano E Menendez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.06.045

2024-07-09

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the extent to which experienced reviewers can accurately discern between AI-generated and original research abstracts published in the field of shoulder and elbow surgery and compare this to the performance of an AI-detection tool. Methods: Twenty-five shoulder and elbow-related articles published in high-impact journals in 2023 were randomly selected. ChatGPT was prompted with only the abstract title to create an AI-generated version of each abstract. The resulting 50 abstracts were randomly distributed to and evaluated by 8 blinded peer reviewers with at least 5 years of experience. Reviewers were tasked with distinguishing between original and AI-generated text. A Likert scale assessed reviewer confidence for each interpretation and the primary reason guiding assessment of generated text was collected. AI output detector (0-100%) and plagiarism (0-100%) scores were evaluated using GPTZero. Results: Reviewers correctly identified 62% of AI-generated abstracts and misclassified 38% of original abstracts as being AI-generated. GPTZero reported a significantly higher probability of AI output among generated abstracts (median 56%, IQR 51-77%) compared to original abstracts (median 10%, IQR 4-37%; p < 0.01). Generated abstracts scored significantly lower on the plagiarism detector (median 7%, IQR 5-14%) relative to original abstracts (median 82%, IQR 72-92%; p < 0.01). Correct identification of AI-generated abstracts was predominately attributed to the presence of unrealistic data/values. The primary reason for misidentifying original abstracts as AI was attributed to writing style. Conclusions: Experienced reviewers faced difficulties in distinguishing between human and AI-generated research content within shoulder and elbow surgery. The presence of unrealistic data facilitated correct identification of AI abstracts, whereas misidentification of original abstracts was often ascribed to writing style.
Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis

Hong Jin Kim,Jae Hyuk Yang,Dong-Gune Chang,Lawrence G Lenke,Javier Pizones,René Castelein,Kota Watanabe,Per D Trobisch,Gregory M Mundis Jr,Seung Woo Suh,Se-Il Suk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/52001

IF: 7.076

2024-06-27

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Background: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. Methods: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. Results: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P <.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P <.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P <.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 ( P <.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. Conclusions: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts

Gabriel Levin,Rene Pareja,David Viveros-Carreño,Emmanuel Sanchez Diaz,Elise Mann Yates,Behrouz Zand,Pedro T Ramirez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2023-005162

2024-05-07

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Abstract:Objective To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. Methods Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. Results The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2–64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2–48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (β=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (β=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. Conclusion A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.

oncology,obstetrics & gynecology
Evaluation and Comparison of Ophthalmic Scientific Abstracts and References by Current Artificial Intelligence Chatbots

Hong-Uyen Hua,Abdul-Hadi Kaakour,Aleksandra Rachitskaya,Sunil Srivastava,Sumit Sharma,Danny A. Mammo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.3119

IF: 8.253

2023-07-27

JAMA Ophthalmology

Abstract:Importance Language-learning model–based artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are growing in popularity and have significant implications for both patient education and academia. Drawbacks of using AI chatbots in generating scientific abstracts and reference lists, including inaccurate content coming from hallucinations (ie, AI-generated output that deviates from its training data), have not been fully explored. Objective To evaluate and compare the quality of ophthalmic scientific abstracts and references generated by earlier and updated versions of a popular AI chatbot. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional comparative study used 2 versions of an AI chatbot to generate scientific abstracts and 10 references for clinical research questions across 7 ophthalmology subspecialties. The abstracts were graded by 2 authors using modified DISCERN criteria and performance evaluation scores. Main Outcome and Measures Scores for the chatbot-generated abstracts were compared using the t test. Abstracts were also evaluated by 2 AI output detectors. A hallucination rate for unverifiable references generated by the earlier and updated versions of the chatbot was calculated and compared. Results The mean modified AI-DISCERN scores for the chatbot-generated abstracts were 35.9 and 38.1 (maximum of 50) for the earlier and updated versions, respectively ( P = .30). Using the 2 AI output detectors, the mean fake scores (with a score of 100% meaning generated by AI) for the earlier and updated chatbot-generated abstracts were 65.4% and 10.8%, respectively ( P = .01), for one detector and were 69.5% and 42.7% ( P = .17) for the second detector. The mean hallucination rates for nonverifiable references generated by the earlier and updated versions were 33% and 29% ( P = .74). Conclusions and Relevance Both versions of the chatbot generated average-quality abstracts. There was a high hallucination rate of generating fake references, and caution should be used when using these AI resources for health education or academic purposes.

ophthalmology
Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers

Alexander T. Pearson,Frederick M. Howard,N. Markov,Yuan Luo,C. Gao,E. Dyer,S. Ramesh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.23.521610

2022-12-27

bioRxiv

Abstract:Background Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. Methods We gathered ten research abstracts from five high impact factor medical journals (n=50) and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. We evaluated the abstracts using an artificial intelligence (AI) output detector, plagiarism detector, and had blinded human reviewers try to distinguish whether abstracts were original or generated. Results All ChatGPT-generated abstracts were written clearly but only 8% correctly followed the specific journal’s formatting requirements. Most generated abstracts were detected using the AI output detector, with scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% [12.73, 99.98] compared with very low probability of AI-generated output in the original abstracts of 0.02% [0.02, 0.09]. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored very high on originality using the plagiarism detector (100% [100, 100] originality). Generated abstracts had a similar patient cohort size as original abstracts, though the exact numbers were fabricated. When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, but that the generated abstracts were vaguer and had a formulaic feel to the writing. Conclusion ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. These are original without any plagiarism detected but are often identifiable using an AI output detector and skeptical human reviewers. Abstract evaluation for journals and medical conferences must adapt policy and practice to maintain rigorous scientific standards; we suggest inclusion of AI output detectors in the editorial process and clear disclosure if these technologies are used. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing remain to be determined.

Medicine,Biology,Computer Science
AI discernment in foot and ankle surgery research: A survey investigation

Steven R Cooperman,Abisola Olaniyan,Roberto A Brandão

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2024.10.001

2024-10-09

Abstract:Background: This study evaluated the ability to differentiate between AI-generated and human-authored abstracts in foot and ankle surgery. Methods: An AI system (ChatGPT 3.0) was trained on 21 published abstracts to create six novel case abstracts. Nine foot and ankle surgeons participated in a blinded survey, tasked with distinguishing AI-generated from human-written abstracts, rating their confidence in their responses. Surveys were completed twice at two different time points to evaluate intra-/inter-observer reliability. Results: The overall accuracy rate for distinguishing AI-generated from human-written abstracts was 50.5 % (n = 109/216), indicating no better performance than random chance. Reviewer experience and AI familiarity did not significantly affect accuracy. Inter-rater reliability was moderate initially but decreased over time, and intra-rater reliability was poor. Conclusions: In their current form, AI-generated abstracts are nearly indistinguishable from human-written ones, posing challenges for consistent identification in foot and ankle surgery. Level of evidence: IV.
Artificial intelligence (AI) content detection in ASCO scientific abstracts from 2021 to 2023.

Frederick Matthew Howard,Anran Li,Mark Riffon,Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer,Alexander T. Pearson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.1565

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1565 Background: Generative AI models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT have been broadly utilized throughout the medical literature. Previous studies have found that AI can generate scientific abstracts which can be difficult to distinguish from the work of human authors. There is a pressing need to characterize utilization of AI in scientific writing to guide policy. Methods: In collaboration with ASCO's Center for Research and Analytics, we extracted text from all scientific abstracts submitted to ASCO 2021 – 2023 Annual Meetings. Likelihood of AI content was evaluated by four AI detectors: GPTZero, Originality.ai (OGAI), Sapling, and Kashyap's AI Content Detector (AICD). Each detector produces a numeric likelihood of AI content. Predictions were dichotomized for uniform analysis across detectors: those in the top 5% for a given detector were considered as having high likelihood of AI content. Logistic regression was used to compute odds ratio (OR) for AI-generated content with respect to submission year and abstract characteristics. Predictions were also assessed for 10 human-written abstracts as negative controls, and 10 produced by OpenAI’s GPT-3 and GPT-4 models as positive controls. Results: 15,553 abstracts met inclusion criteria. 5,179 (33%) were published online only, and 5,327 (34%) referenced registered clinical trials. Across all detectors, abstracts submitted in 2023 were significantly more likely to contain AI content than those in 2021 (OR range 1.3 - 1.7). In abstracts from 2023, AI content score was associated with online only publication, lack of clinical trial number, and abstract track (Table). None of the 10 negative control human written abstracts were identified as AI generated, whereas 100%, 95%, 90%, and 30% of the GPT-3/4 generated abstracts were classified as AI generated by Sapling, GPTZero, OGAI, and AICD respectively using the 5% threshold. Additional results will be presented. Conclusions: AI content detectors uniformly suggest a higher likelihood of AI content generation for abstracts submitted in 2023. Predicted AI content is associated with triage of abstracts to online only presentation, suggesting predicted AI content is associated with lower perceived abstract quality. Further work is needed to understand the accuracy of AI detectors and utility in the abstract review process. [Table: see text]

oncology
Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis

Hassan Tarek Hakam,Robert Prill,Lisa Korte,Bruno Lovreković,Marko Ostojić,Nikolai Ramadanov,Felix Muehlensiepen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/52164

2024-02-16

Abstract:Background: As large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into different aspects of health care, questions about the implications for medical academic literature have begun to emerge. Key aspects such as authenticity in academic writing are at stake with artificial intelligence (AI) generating highly linguistically accurate and grammatically sound texts. Objective: The objective of this study is to compare human-written with AI-generated scientific literature in orthopedics and sports medicine. Methods: Five original abstracts were selected from the PubMed database. These abstracts were subsequently rewritten with the assistance of 2 LLMs with different degrees of proficiency. Subsequently, researchers with varying degrees of expertise and with different areas of specialization were asked to rank the abstracts according to linguistic and methodological parameters. Finally, researchers had to classify the articles as AI generated or human written. Results: Neither the researchers nor the AI-detection software could successfully identify the AI-generated texts. Furthermore, the criteria previously suggested in the literature did not correlate with whether the researchers deemed a text to be AI generated or whether they judged the article correctly based on these parameters. Conclusions: The primary finding of this study was that researchers were unable to distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to generalize the results of this study. As is the case with any tool used in academic research, the potential to cause harm can be mitigated by relying on the transparency and integrity of the researchers. With scientific integrity at stake, further research with a similar study design should be conducted to determine the magnitude of this issue.
Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing

J. Elliott Casal,Matthew Kessler,Matt Kessler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068

2023-12-01

Research Methods in Applied Linguistics

Abstract:There has been considerable intrigue surrounding the use of Large Language Model powered AI chatbots such as ChatGPT in research, educational contexts, and beyond. However, most studies have explored such tools’ general capabilities and applications for language teaching purposes. The current study advances this discussion to examine issues pertaining to human judgements, accuracy, and research ethics. Specifically, we investigate: 1) the extent to which linguists/reviewers from top journals can distinguish AI- from human-generated writing, 2) what the basis of reviewers’ decisions are, and 3) the extent to which editors of top Applied Linguistics journals believe AI tools are ethical for research purposes. In the study, reviewers (N = 72) completed a judgement task involving AI- and human-generated research abstracts, and several reviewers participated in follow-up interviews to explain their rationales. Similarly, editors (N = 27) completed a survey and interviews to discuss their beliefs. Findings suggest that despite employing multiple rationales to judge texts, reviewers were largely unsuccessful in identifying AI versus human writing, with an overall positive identification rate of only 38.9%. Additionally, many editors believed there are ethical uses of AI tools for facilitating research processes, yet some disagreed. Future research directions are discussed involving AI tools and academic publishing.

English Else
Attitudes and perceptions of medical researchers towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scientific process: an international cross-sectional survey

Jeremy Y Ng,Sharleen G Maduranayagam,Nirekah Suthakar,Amy Li,Cynthia Lokker,Alfonso Iorio,R Brian Haynes,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(24)00202-4

IF: 36.615

2024-11-24

The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract:Summary Chatbots are artificial intelligence (AI) programs designed to simulate conversations with humans that present opportunities and challenges in scientific research. Despite growing clarity from publishing organisations on the use of AI chatbots, researchers' perceptions remain less understood. In this international cross-sectional survey, we aimed to assess researchers' attitudes, familiarity, perceived benefits, and limitations related to AI chatbots. Our online survey was open from July 9 to Aug 11, 2023, with 61 560 corresponding authors identified from 122 323 articles indexed in PubMed. 2452 (4·0%) provided responses and 2165 (94·5%) of 2292 who met eligibility criteria completed the survey. 1161 (54·0%) of 2149 respondents were male and 959 (44·6%) were female. 1294 (60·5%) of 2138 respondents were familiar with AI chatbots, and 945 (44·5%) of 2125 had previously used AI chatbots in research. Only 244 (11·4%) of 2137 reported institutional training on AI tools, and 211 (9·9%) of 2131 noted institutional policies on AI chatbot use. Despite mixed opinions on the benefits, 1428 (69·7%) of 2048 expressed interest in further training. Although many valued AI chatbots for reducing administrative workload (1299 [66·9%] of 1941), there was insufficient understanding of the decision making process (1484 [77·2%] of 1923). Overall, this study highlights substantial interest in AI chatbots among researchers, but also points to the need for more formal training and clarity on their use.

medicine, general & internal,medical informatics
The ChatGPT conundrum: Human-generated scientific manuscripts misidentified as AI creations by AI text detection tool

Hooman H. Rashidi,Brandon D. Fennell,Samer Albahra,Bo Hu,Tom Gorbett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100342

2023-01-01

Journal of Pathology Informatics

Abstract:AI Chat Bots such as ChatGPT are revolutionizing our AI capabilities, especially in text generation, to help expedite many tasks, but they introduce new dilemmas. The detection of AI-generated text has become a subject of great debate considering the AI text detector’s known and unexpected limitations. Thus far, much research in this area has focused on the detection of AI-generated text; however, the goal of this study was to evaluate the opposite scenario, an AI-text detection tool's ability to discriminate human-generated text. Thousands of abstracts from several of the most well-known scientific journals were used to test the predictive capabilities of these detection tools, assessing abstracts from 1980 to 2023. We found that the AI text detector erroneously identified up to 8% of the known real abstracts as AI-generated text. This further highlights the current limitations of such detection tools and argues for novel detectors or combined approaches that can address this shortcoming and minimize its unanticipated consequences as we navigate this new AI landscape.
Residency Application Selection Committee Discriminatory Ability in Identifying Artificial Intelligence-Generated Personal Statements

Issam Koleilat,Advaith Bongu,Sumy Chang,Dylan Nieman,Steven Priolo,Nell Maloney Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.02.009

IF: 3.524

2024-04-30

Journal of Surgical Education

Abstract:OBJECTIVE Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have given rise to sophisticated algorithms capable of generating human-like text. The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of human reviewers to reliably differentiate personal statements (PS) written by human authors from those generated by AI software. SETTING Four personal statements from the archives of two surgical program directors were de-identified and used as the human samples. Two AI platforms were used to generate nine additional PS. PARTICIPANTS Four surgeons from the residency selection committees of two surgical residency programs of a large multihospital system served as blinded reviewers. AI was also asked to evaluate each PS sample for authorship. DESIGN Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the reviewers in identifying the PS author were calculated. Kappa statistic for correlation between the hypothesized author and the true author were calculated. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the kappa statistic with Light's modification given more than two reviewers in a fully-crossed design. Logistic regression was performed with to model the impact of perceived creativity, writing quality, and authorship or the likelihood of offering an interview. RESULTS Human reviewer sensitivity for identifying an AI-generated PS was 0.87 with specificity of 0.37 and overall accuracy of 0.55. The level of agreement by kappa statistic of the reviewer estimate of authorship and the true authorship was 0.19 (slight agreement). The reviewers themselves had an inter-rater reliability of 0.067 (poor), with only complete agreement (four out of four reviewers) on two PS, both authored by humans. The odds ratio of offering an interview (compared to a composite of "backup" status or no interview) to a perceived human author was 7 times that of a perceived AI author (95% confidence interval 1.5276 to 32.0758, p=0.0144). AI hypothesized human authorship for twelve of the PS, with the last one "unsure." CONCLUSIONS The increasing pervasiveness of AI will have far-reaching effects including on the resident application and recruitment process. Identifying AI-generated personal statements is exceedingly difficult. With the decreasing availability of objective data to assess applicants, a review and potential restructuring of the approach to resident recruitment may be warranted.

surgery,education, scientific disciplines
Digital Ink and Surgical Dreams: Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Essays in Residency Applications

Loralai M Crawford,Peter Hendzlik,Justine Lam,Lisa M Cannon,Yanjie Qi,Lauren DeCaporale-Ryan,Nicole A Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.06.020

2024-07-22

Abstract:Introduction: Large language models like Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) are increasingly used in academic writing. Faculty may consider use of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated responses a form of cheating. We sought to determine whether general surgery residency faculty could detect AI versus human-written responses to a text prompt; hypothesizing that faculty would not be able to reliably differentiate AI versus human-written responses. Methods: Ten essays were generated using a text prompt, "Tell us in 1-2 paragraphs why you are considering the University of Rochester for General Surgery residency" (Current trainees: n = 5, ChatGPT: n = 5). Ten blinded faculty reviewers rated essays (ten-point Likert scale) on the following criteria: desire to interview, relevance to the general surgery residency, overall impression, and AI- or human-generated; with scores and identification error rates compared between the groups. Results: There were no differences between groups for %total points (ChatGPT 66.0 ± 13.5%, human 70.0 ± 23.0%, P = 0.508) or identification error rates (ChatGPT 40.0 ± 35.0%, human 20.0 ± 30.0%, P = 0.175). Except for one, all essays were identified incorrectly by at least two reviewers. Essays identified as human-generated received higher overall impression scores (area under the curve: 0.82 ± 0.04, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Whether use of AI tools for academic purposes should constitute academic dishonesty is controversial. We demonstrate that human and AI-generated essays are similar in quality, but there is bias against presumed AI-generated essays. Faculty are not able to reliably differentiate human from AI-generated essays, thus bias may be misdirected. AI-tools are becoming ubiquitous and their use is not easily detected. Faculty must expect these tools to play increasing roles in medical education.
The great detectives: humans versus AI detectors in catching large language model-generated medical writing

Jae Q. J. Liu,Kelvin T. K. Hui,Fadi Al Zoubi,Zing Z. X. Zhou,Dino Samartzis,Curtis C. H. Yu,Jeremy R. Chang,Arnold Y. L. Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00155-6

2024-05-20

International Journal for Educational Integrity

Abstract:Abstract Background The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing has raised concerns regarding accuracy, ethics, and scientific rigour. Some AI content detectors may not accurately identify AI-generated texts, especially those that have undergone paraphrasing. Therefore, there is a pressing need for efficacious approaches or guidelines to govern AI usage in specific disciplines. Objective Our study aims to compare the accuracy of mainstream AI content detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated rehabilitation-related articles with or without paraphrasing. Study design This cross-sectional study purposively chose 50 rehabilitation-related articles from four peer-reviewed journals, and then fabricated another 50 articles using ChatGPT. Specifically, ChatGPT was used to generate the introduction, discussion, and conclusion sections based on the original titles, methods, and results. Wordtune was then used to rephrase the ChatGPT-generated articles. Six common AI content detectors (Originality.ai, Turnitin, ZeroGPT, GPTZero, Content at Scale, and GPT-2 Output Detector) were employed to identify AI content for the original, ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased articles. Four human reviewers (two student reviewers and two professorial reviewers) were recruited to differentiate between the original articles and AI-rephrased articles, which were expected to be more difficult to detect. They were instructed to give reasons for their judgements. Results Originality.ai correctly detected 100% of ChatGPT-generated and AI-rephrased texts. ZeroGPT accurately detected 96% of ChatGPT-generated and 88% of AI-rephrased articles. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of ZeroGPT were 0.98 for identifying human-written and AI articles. Turnitin showed a 0% misclassification rate for human-written articles, although it only identified 30% of AI-rephrased articles. Professorial reviewers accurately discriminated at least 96% of AI-rephrased articles, but they misclassified 12% of human-written articles as AI-generated. On average, students only identified 76% of AI-rephrased articles. Reviewers identified AI-rephrased articles based on ‘incoherent content’ (34.36%), followed by ‘grammatical errors’ (20.26%), and ‘insufficient evidence’ (16.15%). Conclusions and relevance This study directly compared the accuracy of advanced AI detectors and human reviewers in detecting AI-generated medical writing after paraphrasing. Our findings demonstrate that specific detectors and experienced reviewers can accurately identify articles generated by Large Language Models, even after paraphrasing. The rationale employed by our reviewers in their assessments can inform future evaluation strategies for monitoring AI usage in medical education or publications. AI content detectors may be incorporated as an additional screening tool in the peer-review process of academic journals.
Abstracts Written by Medical Researchers vs Generated by Large Language Models

Alexis M. Holland,William R. Lorenz,Jack C. Cavanagh,Neil J. Smart,Sullivan A. Ayuso,Gregory T. Scarola,Kent W. Kercher,Lars N. Jorgensen,Jeffrey E. Janis,John P. Fischer,B. Todd Heniford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.25373

2024-08-03

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study compares medical research abstracts written by surgical trainees or senior surgeons vs abstracts generated by artificial intelligence.

medicine, general & internal
Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients

Ian Moore,Christopher Magnante,Ellie Embry,Jennifer Mathis,Scott Mooney,Shereen Haj-Hassan,Maria Cottingham,Prasad R. Padala

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1438012

2024-07-25

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:Introduction AI technologies have the potential to transform patient care. AI has been used to aid in differential diagnosis and treatment planning for psychiatric disorders, administer therapeutic protocols, assist with interpretation of cognitive testing, and patient treatment planning. Despite advancements, AI has notable limitations and remains understudied and further research on its strengths and limitations in patient care is required. This study explored the responses of AI (Chat-GPT 3.5) and trained clinicians to commonly asked patient questions. Methods Three clinicians and AI provided responses to five dementia/geriatric healthcare-related questions. Responses were analyzed by a fourth, blinded clinician for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, and ease of understanding and to determine which response was AI generated. Results AI responses were rated highest in ease of understanding and depth across all responses and tied for first for clarity, accuracy, and relevance. The rating for AI generated responses was 4.6/5 (SD = 0.26); the clinician s' responses were 4.3 (SD = 0.67), 4.2 (SD = 0.52), and 3.9 (SD = 0.59), respectively. The AI generated answers were identified in 4/5 instances. Conclusions AI responses were rated more highly and consistently on each question individually and overall than clinician answers demonstrating that AI could produce good responses to potential patient questions. However, AI responses were easily distinguishable from those of clinicians. Although AI has the potential to positively impact healthcare, concerns are raised regarding difficulties discerning AI from human generated material, the increased potential for proliferation of misinformation, data security concerns, and more.
Comparisons of Quality, Correctness, and Similarity Between ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Abstracts for Basic Research: Cross-Sectional Study

Shu-Li Cheng,Shih-Jen Tsai,Ya-Mei Bai,Chih-Hung Ko,Chih-Wei Hsu,Fu-Chi Yang,Chia-Kuang Tsai,Yu-Kang Tu,Szu-Nian Yang,Ping-Tao Tseng,Tien-Wei Hsu,Chih-Sung Liang,Kuan-Pin Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/51229

2023-12-25

Abstract:Background: ChatGPT may act as a research assistant to help organize the direction of thinking and summarize research findings. However, few studies have examined the quality, similarity (abstracts being similar to the original one), and accuracy of the abstracts generated by ChatGPT when researchers provide full-text basic research papers. Objective: We aimed to assess the applicability of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in generating abstracts for basic preclinical research. Methods: We selected 30 basic research papers from Nature, Genome Biology, and Biological Psychiatry. Excluding abstracts, we inputted the full text into ChatPDF, an application of a language model based on ChatGPT, and we prompted it to generate abstracts with the same style as used in the original papers. A total of 8 experts were invited to evaluate the quality of these abstracts (based on a Likert scale of 0-10) and identify which abstracts were generated by ChatPDF, using a blind approach. These abstracts were also evaluated for their similarity to the original abstracts and the accuracy of the AI content. Results: The quality of ChatGPT-generated abstracts was lower than that of the actual abstracts (10-point Likert scale: mean 4.72, SD 2.09 vs mean 8.09, SD 1.03; P<.001). The difference in quality was significant in the unstructured format (mean difference -4.33; 95% CI -4.79 to -3.86; P<.001) but minimal in the 4-subheading structured format (mean difference -2.33; 95% CI -2.79 to -1.86). Among the 30 ChatGPT-generated abstracts, 3 showed wrong conclusions, and 10 were identified as AI content. The mean percentage of similarity between the original and the generated abstracts was not high (2.10%-4.40%). The blinded reviewers achieved a 93% (224/240) accuracy rate in guessing which abstracts were written using ChatGPT. Conclusions: Using ChatGPT to generate a scientific abstract may not lead to issues of similarity when using real full texts written by humans. However, the quality of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts was suboptimal, and their accuracy was not 100%.
Quality and correctness of AI-generated versus human-written abstracts in psychiatric research papers

Tien-Wei Hsu,Ping-Tao Tseng,Shih-Jen Tsai,Chih-Hung Ko,Trevor Thompson,Chih-Wei Hsu,Fu-Chi Yang,Chia-Kuang Tsai,Yu-Kang Tu,Szu-Nian Yang,Chih-Sung Liang,Kuan-Pin Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116145

2024-08-17

Abstract:This study aimed to assess the ability of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based chatbot to generate abstracts from academic psychiatric articles. We provided 30 full-text psychiatric papers to ChatPDF (based on ChatGPT) and prompted generating a similar style structured or unstructured abstract. We further used 10 papers from Psychiatry Research as active comparators (unstructured format). We compared the quality of the ChatPDF-generated abstracts with the original human-written abstracts and examined the similarity, plagiarism, detected AI-content, and correctness of the AI-generated abstracts. Five experts evaluated the quality of the abstracts using a blinded approach. They also identified the abstracts written by the original authors and validated the conclusions produced by ChatPDF. We found that the similarity and plagiarism were relatively low (only 14.07% and 8.34%, respectively). The detected AI-content was 31.48% for generated structure-abstracts, 75.58% for unstructured-abstracts, and 66.48% for active comparators abstracts. For quality, generated structured-abstracts were rated similarly to originals, but unstructured ones received significantly lower scores. Experts rated 40% accuracy with structured abstracts, 73% with unstructured ones, and 77% for active comparators. However, 30% of AI-generated abstract conclusions were incorrect. In conclusion, the data organization capabilities of AI language models hold significant potential for applications to summarize information in clinical psychiatry. However, the use of ChatPDF to summarize psychiatric papers requires caution concerning accuracy.
Identifying ChatGPT-written Patient Education Materials Using Text Analysis and Readability

Silas Monje,Sophie Ulene,Alexis Gimovsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2302-8604

2024-05-03

American Journal of Perinatology

Abstract:Objective Artificial intelligence (AI)-based text generators such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have come into the forefront of modern medicine. Given the similarity between AI-generated and human-composed text, tools need to be developed to quickly differentiate the two. Previous work has shown that simple grammatical analysis can reliably differentiate AI-generated text from human-written text. Study Design In this study, ChatGPT was used to generate 25 articles related to obstetric topics similar to those made by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). All articles were geared towards patient education. These AI-generated articles were then analyzed for their readability and grammar using validated scoring systems and compared to real articles from ACOG. Results Characteristics of the 25 AI-generated articles included fewer overall characters than original articles (mean 3,066 vs. 7,426; p < 0.0001), a greater average word length (mean 5.3 vs. 4.8; p < 0.0001), and a lower Flesch–Kincaid score (mean 46 vs. 59; p < 0.0001). With this knowledge, a new scoring system was develop to score articles based on their Flesch–Kincaid readability score, number of total characters, and average word length. This novel scoring system was tested on 17 new AI-generated articles related to obstetrics and 7 articles from ACOG, and was able to differentiate between AI-generated articles and human-written articles with a sensitivity of 94.1% and specificity of 100% (Area Under the Curve [AUC] 0.99). Conclusion As ChatGPT is more widely integrated into medicine, it will be important for health care stakeholders to have tools to separate originally written documents from those generated by AI. While more robust analyses may be required to determine the authenticity of articles written by complex AI technology in the future, simple grammatical analysis can accurately characterize current AI-generated texts with a high degree of sensitivity and specificity. Key Points More tools are needed to identify AI-generated text in obstetrics, for both doctors and patients. Grammatical analysis is quick and easily done. Grammatical analysis is a feasible and accurate way to identify AI-generated text. Received: 19 February 2024 Accepted: 24 March 2024 Accepted Manuscript online: 09 April 2024 Article published online: 02 May 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

pediatrics,obstetrics & gynecology

Identification of Human-Generated vs AI-Generated Research Abstracts by Health Care Professionals

Human versus machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology

Identification of ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts Within Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Poses a Challenge for Reviewers

Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis

Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts

Evaluation and Comparison of Ophthalmic Scientific Abstracts and References by Current Artificial Intelligence Chatbots

Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers

AI discernment in foot and ankle surgery research: A survey investigation

Artificial intelligence (AI) content detection in ASCO scientific abstracts from 2021 to 2023.

Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis

Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing?: A study of research ethics and academic publishing

Attitudes and perceptions of medical researchers towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scientific process: an international cross-sectional survey

The ChatGPT conundrum: Human-generated scientific manuscripts misidentified as AI creations by AI text detection tool

Residency Application Selection Committee Discriminatory Ability in Identifying Artificial Intelligence-Generated Personal Statements

Digital Ink and Surgical Dreams: Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Essays in Residency Applications

The great detectives: humans versus AI detectors in catching large language model-generated medical writing

Abstracts Written by Medical Researchers vs Generated by Large Language Models

Doctor AI? A pilot study examining responses of artificial intelligence to common questions asked by geriatric patients

Comparisons of Quality, Correctness, and Similarity Between ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Abstracts for Basic Research: Cross-Sectional Study

Quality and correctness of AI-generated versus human-written abstracts in psychiatric research papers

Identifying ChatGPT-written Patient Education Materials Using Text Analysis and Readability