Tyler J Margetts, Sonali J Karnik, Hannah S Wang, Lilian I Plotkin, Adrian L Oblak, Jill C Fehrenbacher, Melissa A Kacena, Alexandru Movila
{"title":"Use of AI Language Engine ChatGPT 4.0 to Write a Scientific Review Article Examining the Intersection of Alzheimer's Disease and Bone.","authors":"Tyler J Margetts, Sonali J Karnik, Hannah S Wang, Lilian I Plotkin, Adrian L Oblak, Jill C Fehrenbacher, Melissa A Kacena, Alexandru Movila","doi":"10.1007/s11914-023-00853-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This Comment represents three review articles on the relationship between Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and fracture in an exploration of the benefits that AI can provide in scientific writing. The first drafts of the articles were written (1) entirely by humans; (2) entirely by ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO); and (3) by humans and ChatGPT 4.0 whereby humans selected literature references, but ChatGPT 4.0 completed the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). Importantly, each review article was edited and carefully checked for accuracy by all co-authors resulting in a final manuscript which was significantly different from the original draft.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The human-written article took the most time from start to finish, the AI-only article took the least time, and the AI-assisted article fell between the two. When comparing first drafts to final drafts, the AI-only and AI-assisted articles had higher percentages of different text than the human article. The AI-only paper had a higher percentage of incorrect references in the first draft than the AI-assisted paper. The first draft of the AI-assisted article had a higher similarity score than the other two articles when examined by plagiarism identification software. This writing experiment used time tracking, human editing, and comparison software to examine the benefits and risks of using AI to assist in scientific writing. It showed that while AI may reduce total writing time, hallucinations and plagiarism were prevalent issues with this method and human editing was still necessary to ensure accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48750,"journal":{"name":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","volume":" ","pages":"177-181"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00853-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: This Comment represents three review articles on the relationship between Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and fracture in an exploration of the benefits that AI can provide in scientific writing. The first drafts of the articles were written (1) entirely by humans; (2) entirely by ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO); and (3) by humans and ChatGPT 4.0 whereby humans selected literature references, but ChatGPT 4.0 completed the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). Importantly, each review article was edited and carefully checked for accuracy by all co-authors resulting in a final manuscript which was significantly different from the original draft.
Recent findings: The human-written article took the most time from start to finish, the AI-only article took the least time, and the AI-assisted article fell between the two. When comparing first drafts to final drafts, the AI-only and AI-assisted articles had higher percentages of different text than the human article. The AI-only paper had a higher percentage of incorrect references in the first draft than the AI-assisted paper. The first draft of the AI-assisted article had a higher similarity score than the other two articles when examined by plagiarism identification software. This writing experiment used time tracking, human editing, and comparison software to examine the benefits and risks of using AI to assist in scientific writing. It showed that while AI may reduce total writing time, hallucinations and plagiarism were prevalent issues with this method and human editing was still necessary to ensure accuracy.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
