Recent Trend in Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Biomedical Publishing: A Quantitative Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) technology in recent years have led to its integration into biomedical publishing. However, the extent to which AI has contributed to developing biomedical literature is unclear. This study aimed to identify trends in AI-generated content within peer-reviewed biomedical literature. We first tested the sensitivity and specificity of commercially available AI-detection software (Originality.AI, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada). Next, we conducted a MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) search to identify randomized controlled trials with available abstracts indexed between January 2020 and March 2023. We randomly selected 30 abstracts per quarter during this period and pasted the abstracts into the AI detection software to determine the probability of AI-generated content. The software yielded 100% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and excellent overall discriminatory ability with an area under the receiving operating curve of 97.6%. Among the 390 MEDLINE-indexed abstracts included in the analysis, the prevalence with a high probability (≥ 90%) of AI-generated text increased during the study period from 21.7% to 36.7% (p=0.01) based on a chi-square test for trend. The increasing prevalence of AI-generated text during the study period was also observed in various sensitivity analyses using AI probability thresholds ranging from 50% to 99% (all p≤0.01). The results of this study suggest that the prevalence of AI-assisted publishing in peer-reviewed journals has been increasing in recent years, even before the widespread adoption of ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, California, United States) and similar tools. The extent to which natural writing characteristics of the authors, utilization of common AI-powered applications, and introduction of AI elements during the post-acceptance publication phase influence AI detection scores warrants further study.

Artificial intelligence in diagnosing upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

“…However, it is noteworthy that within group 0, a single article demonstrates three different models for diagnosis, which warrants further attention and calls for more research in this area. Despite the fact that, in the last 5 years, the number of scientific publications utilizing various tools from machine learning has increased both for research development and for the applicability of machine learning models that allow the identification of diagnostic elements in biomedical images ( 30 ).…”

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the application of artificial intelligence in connection with sport research, coaching, and optimization of athletic performance: a brief SWOT analysis

“…AI encompasses all forms of classical machine learning and modern artificial neural networks and through the processing of large amounts of available data ( 2 ) develop more and more human-like capabilities for decision-making and planning. The various applications of artificial intelligence (AI) are revolutionizing numerous aspects of our society ( 3 – 5 ), including the academic community ( 5 ) focusing on applied research relevant to sports.…”

Dose-Response Relationships of Resistance Training in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…The use of AI generated language in published research is increasing, with the proportion of published papers having a "high probability" (>90%) of AI generated language rising from 21.7% to 36.7% between 2020 and 2023. 2 All of these papers were written before the launch of ChatGPT. Humans are not especially good at detecting AI generated languge given the current (imperfect) quality of AI text, [2][3][4] and this quality is expected to improve rapidly as more people interact with these systems which then "learn" from these interactions.…”

“…2 All of these papers were written before the launch of ChatGPT. Humans are not especially good at detecting AI generated languge given the current (imperfect) quality of AI text, [2][3][4] and this quality is expected to improve rapidly as more people interact with these systems which then "learn" from these interactions. [3][4][5] As AI generated text becomes more sophisticated, the ability of human readers to distinguish human vs AI generated text will decline.…”

“…A primary concern now is how to detect text that was generated by an AI system such as ChatGPT that has not been previously published. The use of AI generated language in published research is increasing, with the proportion of published papers having a “high probability” (>90%) of AI generated language rising from 21.7% to 36.7% between 2020 and 2023 2. All of these papers were written before the launch of ChatGPT.…”