Examining the frequency of artificial intelligence generated content in anesthesiology and intensive care journal publications: A cross sectional study.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000041594

Selin Erel, Ozge Erkocak Arabaci, Hasan Kutluk Pampal

{"title":"Examining the frequency of artificial intelligence generated content in anesthesiology and intensive care journal publications: A cross sectional study.","authors":"Selin Erel, Ozge Erkocak Arabaci, Hasan Kutluk Pampal","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000041594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)-based linguistic models has revolutionized academic writing, prompting concerns about integrity. In response, AI-powered text authenticity detectors have been developed. This study examines AI tool usage in anesthesiology and intensive care journals. 1268 articles from 86 journals in \"Anesthesiology\" and \"Anesthesiology and Intensive Care\" were analyzed using Copyleaks and ZeroGPT. English abstracts published between April 18 and May 18, 2023, were scrutinized. ZeroGPT and Copyleaks found average AI usage at 25.1% ± 27.5 and 10.5% ± 15.9, respectively. 16.8% of articles were \"human-written,\" while 83.2% were \"AI-assisted\". AI assistance correlated positively with abstract length and was more common among nonnative English speakers (P < .001). It was also prevalent in high-impact and science citation index-indexed journals (P < .01; P < .001). This study underscores the widespread adoption of AI tools in academic writing, particularly among nonnative English authors and in high-impact journals, emphasizing the need for improved detection mechanisms and regulatory guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":18549,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":"104 8","pages":"e41594"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11857004/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000041594","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)-based linguistic models has revolutionized academic writing, prompting concerns about integrity. In response, AI-powered text authenticity detectors have been developed. This study examines AI tool usage in anesthesiology and intensive care journals. 1268 articles from 86 journals in "Anesthesiology" and "Anesthesiology and Intensive Care" were analyzed using Copyleaks and ZeroGPT. English abstracts published between April 18 and May 18, 2023, were scrutinized. ZeroGPT and Copyleaks found average AI usage at 25.1% ± 27.5 and 10.5% ± 15.9, respectively. 16.8% of articles were "human-written," while 83.2% were "AI-assisted". AI assistance correlated positively with abstract length and was more common among nonnative English speakers (P < .001). It was also prevalent in high-impact and science citation index-indexed journals (P < .01; P < .001). This study underscores the widespread adoption of AI tools in academic writing, particularly among nonnative English authors and in high-impact journals, emphasizing the need for improved detection mechanisms and regulatory guidelines.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Medicine 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

0.00%

发文量

4342

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Medicine is now a fully open access journal, providing authors with a distinctive new service offering continuous publication of original research across a broad spectrum of medical scientific disciplines and sub-specialties. As an open access title, Medicine will continue to provide authors with an established, trusted platform for the publication of their work. To ensure the ongoing quality of Medicine’s content, the peer-review process will only accept content that is scientifically, technically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.