Selecting manuscript for publication

Kim, Seong‐Gon

doi:10.1186/s40902-016-0098-5

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study contributes to the growing body of literature on the limitations of AI chatbots in producing accurate citations and their tendency to generate fictitious references. While previous research has focused primarily on ChatGPT, [6][7][8] particularly in relation to artificial hallucinations or confabulations, [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] this study expands upon the topic by comparing the reliability of ChatGPT to other popular AI chatbots in providing citations to scientific articles. Furthermore, this study employed advanced statistical analysis to demonstrate that the performance differences among the evaluated chatbots is significant.…”

Section: Results In the Context Of What Is Knownmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, concerns have been raised regarding the accuracy of these tools and their potential to produce "hallucinations" or incorrect information. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15] As AI continues to evolve, it is important for clinicians, researchers, and authors to consider the limitations of these tools when using them to answer clinical questions and for scientific research. These limitations include the absence of domain-specific knowledge, inability to access certain databases or resources, insufficient quality control measures, and a lack of reproducibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

Graf,

McKinney,

Dye

et al. 2024

Am J Perinatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the reliability of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic) in generating accurate references from existing obstetric literature. Study Design Between mid-March and late April 2023, ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic were prompted to provide references for specific obstetrical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2020. RCTs were considered for inclusion if they were mentioned in a previous article that primarily evaluated RCTs published by the top medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals with the highest impact factors in 2020 as well as RCTs published in a new journal focused on publishing obstetric RCTs. The selection of the three AI models was based on their popularity, performance in natural language processing, and public availability. Data collection involved prompting the AI chatbots to provide references according to a standardized protocol. The primary evaluation metric was the accuracy of each AI model in correctly citing references, including authors, publication title, journal name, and digital object identifier (DOI). Statistical analysis was performed using a permutation test to compare the performance of the AI models. Results Among the 44 RCTs analyzed, Google Bard demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly citing 13.6% of the requested RCTs, whereas ChatGPT and Chatsonic exhibited lower accuracy rates of 2.4 and 0%, respectively. Google Bard often substantially outperformed Chatsonic and ChatGPT in correctly citing the studied reference components. The majority of references from all AI models studied were noted to provide DOIs for unrelated studies or DOIs that do not exist. Conclusion To ensure the reliability of scientific information being disseminated, authors must exercise caution when utilizing AI for scientific writing and literature search. However, despite their limitations, collaborative partnerships between AI systems and researchers have the potential to drive synergistic advancements, leading to improved patient care and outcomes. Key Points

show abstract

Section: Results In the Context Of What Is Knownmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

Graf,

McKinney,

Dye

et al. 2024

Am J Perinatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have been shown to facilitate plagiarism and academic misconduct. 14,15 Additionally, ChatGPT creates its content based on data limited to before 2021, and so any literature review conducted by the chatbot will not include research conducted after these years, meaning that its content may not be up to date and could therefore be inaccurate. 4 Furthermore, ChatGPT does not have access to closed-access/subscription-based papers on databases such as PubMed.…”

Section: Chatgpt For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

ChatGPT in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Sharma

Ramchandani

Thakker

et al. 2023

Indian J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a versatile large language model-based generative artificial intelligence. It is proficient in a variety of tasks from drafting emails to coding to composing music to passing medical licensing exams. While the potential role of ChatGPT in plastic surgery is promising, evidence-based research is needed to guide its implementation in practice. Methods This review aims to summarize the literature surrounding ChatGPT's use in plastic surgery. Results A literature search revealed several applications for ChatGPT in the field of plastic surgery, including the ability to create academic literature and to aid the production of research. However, the ethical implications of using such chatbots in scientific writing requires careful consideration. ChatGPT can also generate high-quality patient discharge summaries and operation notes within seconds, freeing up busy junior doctors to complete other tasks. However, currently clinical information must still be manually inputted, and clinicians must consider data privacy implications. Its use in aiding patient communication and education and training is also widely documented in the literature. However, questions have been raised over the accuracy of answers generated given that current versions of ChatGPT cannot access the most up-to-date sources. Conclusions While one must be aware of its shortcomings, ChatGPT is a useful tool for plastic surgeons to improve productivity for a range of tasks from manuscript preparation to healthcare communication generation to drafting teaching sessions to studying and learning. As access improves and technology becomes more refined, surely more uses for ChatGPT in plastic surgery will become apparent.

show abstract

“…(19) En tercer lugar, debido a que el conocimiento de ChatGPT se limita a datos anteriores a 2021, su utilidad como fuente de revisión de literatura actualizada y confiable es cuestionable. (20) Por último, se han planteado preocupaciones legales, especialmente en cuanto a los derechos de autor, que pueden surgir debido al uso de ChatGPT para la generación de contenido. (21) Estas limitaciones y desafíos subrayan la necesidad de un enfoque cauteloso y ético en el uso de esta tecnología emergente en diversos contextos.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Investigating the attitude of university students towards the use of ChatGPT as a learning resource

Estrada-Araoz,

Paredes-Valverde,

Quispe-Herrera

et al. 2024

Data and Metadata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: en la actualidad, la integración de tecnologías innovadoras desempeña un papel crucial en la formación académica de los estudiantes. En este contexto, el ChatGPT emerge como una herramienta de vanguardia con el potencial de transformar la experiencia educativa.Objetivo: evaluar la actitud de los estudiantes universitarios hacia el uso del ChatGPT como recurso de aprendizaje.Métodos: estudio cuantitativo, diseño no experimental y de tipo observacional y descriptivo. La muestra fue determinada mediante un muestro aleatorio simple y estuvo conformada por 269 estudiantes universitarios de ambos sexos a quienes se les aplicó la Escala de Actitudes hacia el Uso del ChatGPT, un instrumento con adecuadas propiedades métricas.Resultados: La actitud hacia el uso del ChatGPT como recurso de aprendizaje fue valorada predominantemente en un nivel medio, al igual que las dimensiones afectivo, cognitivo y conductual. Esto sugiere que los estudiantes disfrutan utilizando ChatGPT como herramienta en su proceso de aprendizaje y consideran que facilita y mejora su experiencia educativa. Sin embargo, expresaron preocupación por la posibilidad de que esta herramienta pueda generar resultados inexactos.Conclusiones: la actitud que tenían los estudiantes universitarios hacia el uso del ChatGPT como recurso de aprendizaje fue valorada en un nivel medio. Asimismo, se determinó que conforme los estudiantes avanzaban en su formación académica, desarrollaban una actitud más favorable hacia el uso del ChatGPT.

show abstract

Selecting manuscript for publication

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

ChatGPT in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Investigating the attitude of university students towards the use of ChatGPT as a learning resource

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About