PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Ufuk, Furkan
AU  - Peker, Hakki
AU  - Sagtas, Ergin
AU  - Yagci, Ahmet Baki
TI  - Distinguishing GPT-4-generated Radiology Abstracts from Original Abstracts: Performance of Blinded Human Observers and AI Content Detector
AID  - 10.1101/2023.04.28.23289283
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.04.28.23289283
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/03/2023.04.28.23289283.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/03/2023.04.28.23289283.full
AB  - Objective To determine GPT-4’s effectiveness in writing scientific radiology article abstracts and investigate human reviewers’ and AI Content detectors’ success in distinguishing these abstracts. Additionally, to determine the similarity scores of abstracts generated by GPT-4 to better understand its ability to create unique text.Methods The study collected 250 original articles published between 2021 and 2023 in five radiology journals. The articles were randomly selected, and their abstracts were generated by GPT-4 using a specific prompt. Three experienced academic radiologists independently evaluated the GPT-4 generated and original abstracts to distinguish them as original or generated by GPT-4. All abstracts were also uploaded to an AI Content Detector and plagiarism detector to calculate similarity scores. Statistical analysis was performed to determine discrimination performance and similarity scores.Results Out of 134 GPT-4 generated abstracts, average of 75 (56%) were detected by reviewers, and average of 50 (43%) original abstracts were falsely categorized as GPT-4 generated abstracts by reviewers. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of observers in distinguishing GPT-4 written abstracts ranged from 51.5% to 55.6%, 56.1% to 70%, 54.8% to 60.8%, 41.2% to 76.7%, and 47% to 62.7%, respectively. No significant difference was observed between observers in discrimination performance.Conclusion GPT-4 can generate convincing scientific radiology article abstracts. However, human reviewers and AI Content detectors have difficulty in distinguishing GPT-4 generated abstracts from original ones.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.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Medical Ethics Committee of Pamukkale University gave ethical approval for this work.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.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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors