作者之战:比较人类和人工智能撰写的神经外科文章

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Clinical Neuroscience Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111152
Mehmet Yigit Akgun , Melihcan Savasci , Caner Gunerbuyuk , Sezer Onur Gunara , Tunc Oktenoglu , Ali Fahir Ozer , Ozkan Ates
{"title":"作者之战:比较人类和人工智能撰写的神经外科文章","authors":"Mehmet Yigit Akgun ,&nbsp;Melihcan Savasci ,&nbsp;Caner Gunerbuyuk ,&nbsp;Sezer Onur Gunara ,&nbsp;Tunc Oktenoglu ,&nbsp;Ali Fahir Ozer ,&nbsp;Ozkan Ates","doi":"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to its application in various fields, including medical literature. This study compares the quality of neurosurgery articles written by human authors and those generated by ChatGPT, an advanced AI model. The objective was to determine if AI-generated articles meet the standards of human-written academic papers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 10 neurosurgery articles, 5 written by humans and 5 by ChatGPT, were evaluated by a panel of blinded experts. The assessment parameters included overall impression, readability, criteria satisfaction, and degree of detail. Additionally, readability scores were calculated using the Lix score and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Preference and identification tests were also conducted to determine if experts could distinguish between the two types of articles.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study found no significant differences in the overall quality parameters between human-written and ChatGPT −generated articles. Readability scores were higher for ChatGPT articles (Lix score: 35 vs. 26, Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 10 vs. 8). Experts correctly identified the authorship of the articles 61% of the time, with preferences almost evenly split (47% preferred CHATGPT, 44% preferred human, and 9% had no preference). The most statistically significant result was the higher readability scores of CHATGPT-generated articles, indicating that AI can produce more readable content than human authors.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>ChatGPT is capable of generating neurosurgery articles that are comparable in quality to those written by humans. The higher readability scores of AI-generated articles suggest that ChatGPT can enhance the accessibility of scientific literature. This study supports the potential integration of AI in academic writing, offering a valuable tool for researchers and medical professionals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15487,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","volume":"135 ","pages":"Article 111152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Battle of the authors: Comparing neurosurgery articles written by humans and AI\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Yigit Akgun ,&nbsp;Melihcan Savasci ,&nbsp;Caner Gunerbuyuk ,&nbsp;Sezer Onur Gunara ,&nbsp;Tunc Oktenoglu ,&nbsp;Ali Fahir Ozer ,&nbsp;Ozkan Ates\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jocn.2025.111152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to its application in various fields, including medical literature. This study compares the quality of neurosurgery articles written by human authors and those generated by ChatGPT, an advanced AI model. The objective was to determine if AI-generated articles meet the standards of human-written academic papers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 10 neurosurgery articles, 5 written by humans and 5 by ChatGPT, were evaluated by a panel of blinded experts. The assessment parameters included overall impression, readability, criteria satisfaction, and degree of detail. Additionally, readability scores were calculated using the Lix score and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Preference and identification tests were also conducted to determine if experts could distinguish between the two types of articles.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The study found no significant differences in the overall quality parameters between human-written and ChatGPT −generated articles. Readability scores were higher for ChatGPT articles (Lix score: 35 vs. 26, Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 10 vs. 8). Experts correctly identified the authorship of the articles 61% of the time, with preferences almost evenly split (47% preferred CHATGPT, 44% preferred human, and 9% had no preference). The most statistically significant result was the higher readability scores of CHATGPT-generated articles, indicating that AI can produce more readable content than human authors.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>ChatGPT is capable of generating neurosurgery articles that are comparable in quality to those written by humans. The higher readability scores of AI-generated articles suggest that ChatGPT can enhance the accessibility of scientific literature. This study supports the potential integration of AI in academic writing, offering a valuable tool for researchers and medical professionals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"135 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825001249\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967586825001249","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)的进步导致其在各个领域的应用,包括医学文献。这项研究比较了由人类作者撰写的神经外科文章和由先进的人工智能模型ChatGPT生成的文章的质量。目的是确定人工智能生成的文章是否符合人类撰写的学术论文的标准。方法采用盲法专家组对10篇神经外科文章进行评价,其中5篇由人类撰写,5篇由ChatGPT撰写。评估参数包括总体印象、可读性、标准满意度和详细程度。此外,使用Lix评分和Flesch-Kincaid等级水平计算可读性分数。还进行了偏好和识别测试,以确定专家是否能够区分两种类型的文章。结果研究发现,在人工写作和ChatGPT生成的文章之间,总体质量参数没有显著差异。ChatGPT文章的可读性得分更高(Lix得分:35比26,Flesch-Kincaid等级水平:10比8)。专家正确识别文章作者的比例为61%,偏好几乎平均分配(47%喜欢ChatGPT, 44%喜欢人类,9%没有偏好)。最具统计学意义的结果是chatgpt生成的文章的可读性得分更高,这表明AI可以产生比人类作者更具可读性的内容。结论chatgpt能够生成与人类写作质量相当的神经外科文章。人工智能生成的文章可读性得分较高,表明ChatGPT可以增强科学文献的可访问性。这项研究支持人工智能在学术写作中的潜在整合,为研究人员和医疗专业人员提供了一个有价值的工具。
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
Battle of the authors: Comparing neurosurgery articles written by humans and AI

Background

The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to its application in various fields, including medical literature. This study compares the quality of neurosurgery articles written by human authors and those generated by ChatGPT, an advanced AI model. The objective was to determine if AI-generated articles meet the standards of human-written academic papers.

Methods

A total of 10 neurosurgery articles, 5 written by humans and 5 by ChatGPT, were evaluated by a panel of blinded experts. The assessment parameters included overall impression, readability, criteria satisfaction, and degree of detail. Additionally, readability scores were calculated using the Lix score and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Preference and identification tests were also conducted to determine if experts could distinguish between the two types of articles.

Results

The study found no significant differences in the overall quality parameters between human-written and ChatGPT −generated articles. Readability scores were higher for ChatGPT articles (Lix score: 35 vs. 26, Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 10 vs. 8). Experts correctly identified the authorship of the articles 61% of the time, with preferences almost evenly split (47% preferred CHATGPT, 44% preferred human, and 9% had no preference). The most statistically significant result was the higher readability scores of CHATGPT-generated articles, indicating that AI can produce more readable content than human authors.

Conclusion

ChatGPT is capable of generating neurosurgery articles that are comparable in quality to those written by humans. The higher readability scores of AI-generated articles suggest that ChatGPT can enhance the accessibility of scientific literature. This study supports the potential integration of AI in academic writing, offering a valuable tool for researchers and medical professionals.
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
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
402
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: This International journal, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, publishes articles on clinical neurosurgery and neurology and the related neurosciences such as neuro-pathology, neuro-radiology, neuro-ophthalmology and neuro-physiology. The journal has a broad International perspective, and emphasises the advances occurring in Asia, the Pacific Rim region, Europe and North America. The Journal acts as a focus for publication of major clinical and laboratory research, as well as publishing solicited manuscripts on specific subjects from experts, case reports and other information of interest to clinicians working in the clinical neurosciences.
期刊最新文献
Unlocking global neurosurgery: how telemedicine addresses unmet needs and future prospects — a scoping review Different duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after endovascular treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysms Reversible lenticulostriate perforator aneurysms in herpes simplex encephalitis Real-world outcomes of ADAPT using contemporary large-bore aspiration catheters versus combined techniques in acute ischemic stroke ABO blood group and cerebrovascular complications after carotid angiography and stenting: a natural thrombotic marker?
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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