读者能在医疗保健写作中发现人工智能的骗子吗?

Q2 Health Professions Medical Writing Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI:10.56012/fwhk6920
Natalie Bourré
{"title":"读者能在医疗保健写作中发现人工智能的骗子吗?","authors":"Natalie Bourré","doi":"10.56012/fwhk6920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistants in the healthcare industry is becoming increasingly prevalent. These tools can help medical writers to generate content more quickly and efficiently, but they also raise concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information that is produced. This study investigated whether readers can distinguish between health-related texts written by humans and those generated by AI writing assistants. A survey of 164 respondents found that slightly more than half could correctly identify the source of the healthcare text. Differences between healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals were not statistically significant. Medical writers were better at recognising that a text had been written by an AI model than were non-medical writers (P<.05). These findings suggest that it is important for organisations to establish clear guidelines regarding the use of AI writing assistants in healthcare. The authors of health-related content should be required to identify whether their work has been completed by a human or an AI writer, and organisations should develop processes for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated content. This study has several limitations, including the small sample size. However, the findings provide valuable insights into the need for organisations to develop clear guidelines for their use.","PeriodicalId":37384,"journal":{"name":"Medical Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can readers spot the AI impostor in healthcare writing?\",\"authors\":\"Natalie Bourré\",\"doi\":\"10.56012/fwhk6920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistants in the healthcare industry is becoming increasingly prevalent. These tools can help medical writers to generate content more quickly and efficiently, but they also raise concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information that is produced. This study investigated whether readers can distinguish between health-related texts written by humans and those generated by AI writing assistants. A survey of 164 respondents found that slightly more than half could correctly identify the source of the healthcare text. Differences between healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals were not statistically significant. Medical writers were better at recognising that a text had been written by an AI model than were non-medical writers (P<.05). These findings suggest that it is important for organisations to establish clear guidelines regarding the use of AI writing assistants in healthcare. The authors of health-related content should be required to identify whether their work has been completed by a human or an AI writer, and organisations should develop processes for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated content. This study has several limitations, including the small sample size. However, the findings provide valuable insights into the need for organisations to develop clear guidelines for their use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Writing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56012/fwhk6920\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56012/fwhk6920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)写作助手在医疗保健行业的使用正变得越来越普遍。这些工具可以帮助医学作者更快、更有效地生成内容,但它们也引起了人们对所生成信息的准确性和完整性的担忧。这项研究调查了读者是否能够区分人类撰写的与健康相关的文本和由人工智能写作助手生成的文本。一项对164名受访者的调查发现,略多于一半的受访者能够正确识别医疗保健文本的来源。医疗保健专业人员和非医疗保健专业人员之间的差异无统计学意义。医学作家比非医学作家更善于识别由人工智能模型撰写的文本(P< 0.05)。这些发现表明,组织必须制定关于在医疗保健中使用人工智能写作助手的明确指导方针。应要求与健康相关内容的作者确定其工作是由人类还是人工智能作者完成的,各组织应制定评估人工智能生成内容的准确性和完整性的流程。本研究有一些局限性,包括样本量小。然而,这些发现提供了有价值的见解,说明组织需要为其使用制定明确的指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can readers spot the AI impostor in healthcare writing?
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistants in the healthcare industry is becoming increasingly prevalent. These tools can help medical writers to generate content more quickly and efficiently, but they also raise concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information that is produced. This study investigated whether readers can distinguish between health-related texts written by humans and those generated by AI writing assistants. A survey of 164 respondents found that slightly more than half could correctly identify the source of the healthcare text. Differences between healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals were not statistically significant. Medical writers were better at recognising that a text had been written by an AI model than were non-medical writers (P<.05). These findings suggest that it is important for organisations to establish clear guidelines regarding the use of AI writing assistants in healthcare. The authors of health-related content should be required to identify whether their work has been completed by a human or an AI writer, and organisations should develop processes for evaluating the accuracy and completeness of AI-generated content. This study has several limitations, including the small sample size. However, the findings provide valuable insights into the need for organisations to develop clear guidelines for their use.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Writing
Medical Writing Health Professions-Medical Terminology
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Medical Writing is a quarterly publication that aims to educate and inform medical writers in Europe and beyond. Each issue focuses on a specific theme, and all issues include feature articles and regular columns on topics relevant to the practice of medical writing. We welcome articles providing practical advice to medical writers; guidelines and reviews/summaries/updates of guidelines published elsewhere; original research; opinion pieces; interviews; and review articles.
期刊最新文献
I did it so you don’t have to: Lessons learned as a young writer struggling with a regulatory document Overcoming confidential information challenges faced by study sponsors today Meet and Share session on protecting the public from undue harm during research studies: A report Medical Writing explores the many faces of biotechnology Harold Swanberg, MD: Why and how EMWA should remember him
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1