Abstract
Objectives This study aims at investigating how early-stage AI-based transformers can support researchers in designing and conducting an epidemiological study. To accomplish this, we used ChatGPT to reformulate the STROBE recommendations into a list of questions to be answered by the transformer itself. We then qualitatively evaluated the coherence and relevance of the transformer’s outputs.
Study design Descriptive study.
Methods We first chose a study to be used as a basis for the simulation. We then used ChatGPT to transform each STROBE checklist’s item into specific prompts. Each answer to the respective prompt was evaluated by independent researchers in terms of coherence and relevance.
Results The mean scores assigned to each prompt were heterogeneous. On average, for the coherence domain, the overall mean score was 3.6 out of 5.0, and for relevance it was 3.3 out of 5.0. The lowest scores were assigned to items belonging to the Methods section of the checklist.
Conclusions ChatGPT can be considered as a valuable support for researchers in conducting an epidemiological study, following internationally recognized guidelines and standards. It is crucial for the users to have knowledge on the subject and a critical mindset when evaluating the outputs. The potential benefits of AI in scientific research and publishing are undeniable, but it is crucial to address the risks, and the ethical and legal consequences associated with its use.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos