{"title":"探索 ChatGPT 在医学文章写作和同行评审方面的能力。","authors":"Gültekin Kadi, Mehmet Ali Aslaner","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.</p>","PeriodicalId":10796,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Medical Journal","volume":"65 2","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11074943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.\",\"authors\":\"Gültekin Kadi, Mehmet Ali Aslaner\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Croatian Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"65 2\",\"pages\":\"93-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11074943/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Croatian Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.
Aim: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles.
Methods: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles.
Results: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes.
Conclusion: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.
期刊介绍：
Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) is an international peer reviewed journal open to scientists from all fields of biomedicine and health related research.
Although CMJ welcomes all contributions that increase and expand on medical knowledge, the two areas are of the special interest: topics globally relevant for biomedicine and health and medicine in developing and emerging countries.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
