Using AI to Write a Review Article Examining the Role of the Nervous System on Skeletal Homeostasis and Fracture Healing

IF 4.2 2区医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Current Osteoporosis Reports Pub Date : 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1007/s11914-023-00854-y

{"title":"Using AI to Write a Review Article Examining the Role of the Nervous System on Skeletal Homeostasis and Fracture Healing","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11914-023-00854-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose of Review</h3> <p>Three review articles have been written that discuss the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems in fracture healing. While content among the articles is overlapping, there is a key difference between them: the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In one paper, the first draft was written solely by humans. In the second paper, the first draft was written solely by AI using ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO). In the third paper, the first draft was written using ChatGPT 4.0 but the literature references were supplied from the human-written paper (AI-assisted or AIA). This project was done to evaluate the capacity of AI to conduct scientific writing. Importantly, all manuscripts were fact checked and extensively edited by all co-authors rendering the final manuscript drafts significantly different from the first drafts.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Recent Findings</h3> <p>Unsurprisingly, the use of AI decreased the time spent to write a review. The two AI-written reviews took less time to write than the human-written paper; however, the changes and editing required in all three manuscripts were extensive. The human-written paper was edited the most. On the other hand, the AI-only paper was the most inaccurate with inappropriate reference usage and the AI-assisted paper had the greatest incidence of plagiarism.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Summary</h3> <p>These findings show that each style of writing presents its own unique set of challenges and advantages. While AI can theoretically write scientific reviews, from these findings, the extent of editing done subsequently, the inaccuracy of the claims it makes, and the plagiarism by AI are all factors to be considered and a primary reason why it may be several years into the future before AI can present itself as a viable alternative for traditional scientific writing.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":11080,"journal":{"name":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00854-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Three review articles have been written that discuss the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems in fracture healing. While content among the articles is overlapping, there is a key difference between them: the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In one paper, the first draft was written solely by humans. In the second paper, the first draft was written solely by AI using ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO). In the third paper, the first draft was written using ChatGPT 4.0 but the literature references were supplied from the human-written paper (AI-assisted or AIA). This project was done to evaluate the capacity of AI to conduct scientific writing. Importantly, all manuscripts were fact checked and extensively edited by all co-authors rendering the final manuscript drafts significantly different from the first drafts.

Recent Findings

Unsurprisingly, the use of AI decreased the time spent to write a review. The two AI-written reviews took less time to write than the human-written paper; however, the changes and editing required in all three manuscripts were extensive. The human-written paper was edited the most. On the other hand, the AI-only paper was the most inaccurate with inappropriate reference usage and the AI-assisted paper had the greatest incidence of plagiarism.

Summary

These findings show that each style of writing presents its own unique set of challenges and advantages. While AI can theoretically write scientific reviews, from these findings, the extent of editing done subsequently, the inaccuracy of the claims it makes, and the plagiarism by AI are all factors to be considered and a primary reason why it may be several years into the future before AI can present itself as a viable alternative for traditional scientific writing.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

使用人工智能撰写评论文章，探讨神经系统对骨骼平衡和骨折愈合的作用

摘要综述目的已有三篇综述文章讨论了中枢神经系统和外周神经系统在骨折愈合中的作用。虽然这些文章的内容有所重叠，但它们之间有一个关键的区别：人工智能（AI）的使用。其中一篇论文的初稿完全由人类撰写。在第二篇论文中，初稿完全由人工智能使用 ChatGPT 4.0 撰写（纯人工智能或 AIO）。在第三篇论文中，初稿是使用 ChatGPT 4.0 撰写的，但文献参考资料是从人类撰写的论文中提供的（人工智能辅助或 AIA）。该项目旨在评估人工智能进行科学写作的能力。重要的是，所有手稿都经过所有共同作者的事实检查和广泛编辑，使最终手稿草稿与初稿有很大不同。最新研究结果不出所料，使用人工智能减少了撰写综述的时间。两篇人工智能撰写的综述比人工撰写的论文花费的时间要少；但是，三篇手稿都需要进行大量的修改和编辑。人工撰写的论文被编辑的次数最多。另一方面，纯人工智能论文在参考文献的使用上最不准确，人工智能辅助论文的抄袭率最高。总结这些研究结果表明，每种写作风格都有其独特的挑战和优势。虽然从理论上讲，人工智能可以撰写科学评论，但从这些研究结果来看，人工智能随后所做的编辑工作的程度、人工智能提出的主张的不准确性以及人工智能的抄袭行为都是需要考虑的因素，这也是为什么人工智能可能要在未来几年后才能成为传统科学写作的可行替代品的主要原因。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Current Osteoporosis Reports Medicine-Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism

CiteScore

8.80

自引率

2.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： This journal intends to provide clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts that review the most important, recently published clinical findings related to the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of osteoporosis. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as current and future therapeutics, epidemiology and pathophysiology, and evaluation and management. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.