RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing human and artificial intelligence in writing for health journals: an exploratory study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.02.22.23286322
DO 10.1101/2023.02.22.23286322
A1 Haq, Zaeem ul
A1 Naeem, Huzaifa
A1 Naeem, Ayesha
A1 Iqbal, Faisal
A1 Zaeem, Durayya
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/26/2023.02.22.23286322.abstract
AB Aim and objectives The aim was to contribute to the editorial principles on the possible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)- based tools for scientific writing.The objectives includedEnlist the inclusion and exclusion criteria to test ChatGPT use in scientific writingDevelop evaluation criteria to assess the quality of articles written by human authors and ChatGPTCompare prospectively written manuscripts by human authors and ChatGPTDesign Prospective exploratory studyIntervention Human authors and ChatGPT were asked to write short journal articles on three topics: 1) Promotion of early childhood development in Pakistan 2) Interventions to improve gender-responsive health services in low-and-middle-income countries, and 3) The pitfalls in risk communication for COVID-19. We content analyzed the articles using an evaluation matrix.Outcome measures The completeness, credibility, and scientific content of an article. Completeness meant that structure (IMRaD) and organization was maintained. Credibility required that others work is duly cited, with an accurate bibliography. Scientific content required specificity, data accuracy, cohesion, inclusivity, confidentiality, limitations, readability, and time efficiency.Results The articles by human authors scored better than ChatGPT in completeness and credibility. Similarly, human-written articles scored better for most of the items in scientific content except for time efficiency where ChatGPT scored better. The methods section was absent in ChatGPT articles, and a majority of references in its bibliography were unverifiable.Conclusions ChatGPT generates content that is believable but may not be true. The creators of this powerful model must step up and provide solutions to manage its glitches and potential misuse. In parallel, the academic departments, editors, and publishers must expect a growing utilization of ChatGPT and similar tools. Disallowing ChatGPT as a co-author may not be enough on their part. They must adapt the editorial policies, use measures to detect AI-based writing, and stop its likely implications for human health and life.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSFirst study that examines the scientific writing of ChatGPT by comparing it with human-written articles.Explains how ChatGPT generates believable content that may not be true.Indicates that the creators of ChatGPT must step up to address its misuse and potential hazards.An initial exploration, based on limited data—larger studies are needed for generalizable conclusions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.