人工智能工具与人工智能文本:检测足踝手术中人工智能生成的文字

Steven R. Cooperman DPM, MBA, AACFAS , Roberto A. Brandão DPM, FACFAS
{"title":"人工智能工具与人工智能文本:检测足踝手术中人工智能生成的文字","authors":"Steven R. Cooperman DPM, MBA, AACFAS ,&nbsp;Roberto A. Brandão DPM, FACFAS","doi":"10.1016/j.fastrc.2024.100367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained traction in scientific research, but concerns about plagiarism and fraud have surfaced. This study explores AI detection tools' capacity to distinguish AI-generated from human-generated text in foot and ankle surgery literature. Six publicly available AI detection tools were employed, and 12 abstracts were analyzed, including 6 AI-generated and 6 human-generated. Copyleaks demonstrated the highest raw accuracy (83 %). Overall, the tools exhibited 63 % accuracy, with a 25 % false positive rate. GPTZero, retested after three months, showed increased sensitivity (24.5 %) in identifying AI-generated content. To assess countermeasures, AI-generated abstracts were reworded using ChatGPT 3.5. The rewording led to a 54.83 % decrease in AI content detection. These findings highlight the challenges in reliably detecting AI-generated content in scientific literature, emphasizing the need for robust countermeasures and continued vigilance against potential fraudulent research. The study sheds light on the evolving landscape of AI detection technologies and emphasizes the urgency of adapting journal policies to safeguard against emerging threats.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73047,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.)","volume":"4 1","pages":"Article 100367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667396724000077/pdfft?md5=71360bad44ec1d8859b201a852608a11&pid=1-s2.0-S2667396724000077-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI tools vs AI text: Detecting AI-generated writing in foot and ankle surgery\",\"authors\":\"Steven R. Cooperman DPM, MBA, AACFAS ,&nbsp;Roberto A. Brandão DPM, FACFAS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fastrc.2024.100367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained traction in scientific research, but concerns about plagiarism and fraud have surfaced. This study explores AI detection tools' capacity to distinguish AI-generated from human-generated text in foot and ankle surgery literature. Six publicly available AI detection tools were employed, and 12 abstracts were analyzed, including 6 AI-generated and 6 human-generated. Copyleaks demonstrated the highest raw accuracy (83 %). Overall, the tools exhibited 63 % accuracy, with a 25 % false positive rate. GPTZero, retested after three months, showed increased sensitivity (24.5 %) in identifying AI-generated content. To assess countermeasures, AI-generated abstracts were reworded using ChatGPT 3.5. The rewording led to a 54.83 % decrease in AI content detection. These findings highlight the challenges in reliably detecting AI-generated content in scientific literature, emphasizing the need for robust countermeasures and continued vigilance against potential fraudulent research. The study sheds light on the evolving landscape of AI detection technologies and emphasizes the urgency of adapting journal policies to safeguard against emerging threats.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 100367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667396724000077/pdfft?md5=71360bad44ec1d8859b201a852608a11&pid=1-s2.0-S2667396724000077-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667396724000077\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667396724000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)在科学研究中的应用越来越广泛,但有关剽窃和欺诈的担忧也随之浮出水面。本研究探讨了人工智能检测工具区分足踝外科文献中人工智能生成和人工生成文本的能力。研究使用了六种公开的人工智能检测工具,分析了 12 篇摘要,其中包括 6 篇人工智能生成的摘要和 6 篇人工生成的摘要。Copyleaks 的原始准确率最高(83%)。总体而言,这些工具的准确率为 63%,误报率为 25%。三个月后重新测试的 GPTZero 在识别人工智能生成的内容方面显示出更高的灵敏度(24.5%)。为了评估应对措施,使用 ChatGPT 3.5 对人工智能生成的摘要进行了重新措辞。重写后,人工智能内容检测率下降了 54.83%。这些发现凸显了可靠检测科学文献中人工智能生成内容所面临的挑战,强调了采取强有力的应对措施和持续警惕潜在欺诈性研究的必要性。这项研究揭示了人工智能检测技术不断发展的态势,并强调了调整期刊政策以防范新兴威胁的紧迫性。
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
AI tools vs AI text: Detecting AI-generated writing in foot and ankle surgery

Artificial intelligence (AI) has gained traction in scientific research, but concerns about plagiarism and fraud have surfaced. This study explores AI detection tools' capacity to distinguish AI-generated from human-generated text in foot and ankle surgery literature. Six publicly available AI detection tools were employed, and 12 abstracts were analyzed, including 6 AI-generated and 6 human-generated. Copyleaks demonstrated the highest raw accuracy (83 %). Overall, the tools exhibited 63 % accuracy, with a 25 % false positive rate. GPTZero, retested after three months, showed increased sensitivity (24.5 %) in identifying AI-generated content. To assess countermeasures, AI-generated abstracts were reworded using ChatGPT 3.5. The rewording led to a 54.83 % decrease in AI content detection. These findings highlight the challenges in reliably detecting AI-generated content in scientific literature, emphasizing the need for robust countermeasures and continued vigilance against potential fraudulent research. The study sheds light on the evolving landscape of AI detection technologies and emphasizes the urgency of adapting journal policies to safeguard against emerging threats.

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
Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.)
Foot & ankle surgery (New York, N.Y.) Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Podiatry
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
75 days
期刊最新文献
Interpositional arthroplasty of the fourth and fifth tarsometatarsal joint with an autologous gastrocnemius aponeurosis graft: A surgical technique guide and case series Achilles hero or heel? A systematic review of popliteal nerve block for achilles repair Adenocarcinoma of the lung with metastasis to the foot: A case report MRI findings one year post-radio frequency ablation for chronic Achilles tendonosis: A case report Anatomic lateral ankle reconstruction with tendon allograft after failed brostrom. A case series and surgical technique guide
×
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