Thoughts on artificial intelligence use in medical practice and in scientific writing

Effectiveness of AI-powered Chatbots in responding to orthopaedic postgraduate exam questions-an observational study

PURPOSE

This study analyses the performance and proficiency of the three Artificial Intelligence (AI) generative chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Bard Google AI®) and in answering the Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) of postgraduate (PG) level orthopaedic qualifying examinations.

METHODS

A series of 120 mock Single Best Answer' (SBA) MCQs with four possible options named A, B, C and D as answers on various musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions covering Trauma and Orthopaedic curricula were compiled. A standardised text prompt was used to generate and feed ChatGPT (both 3.5 and 4.0 versions) and Google Bard programs, which were then statistically analysed.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between responses from Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 27.2, P < 0.001) and on comparing both Chat GPT 3.5 (Chi square = 63.852, P < 0.001) with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 44.246, P < 0.001) with. Bard Google AI® had 100% efficiency and was significantly more efficient than both Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate the variable potential of the different AI generative chatbots (Chat GPT 3.5, Chat GPT 4.0 and Bard Google) in their ability to answer the MCQ of PG-level orthopaedic qualifying examinations. Bard Google AI® has shown superior performance than both ChatGPT versions, underlining the potential of such large language processing models in processing and applying orthopaedic subspecialty knowledge at a PG level.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and ChatGPT involvement in scientific and medical writing, a new concern for researchers. A scoping review

Purpose

The study aims to evaluate PubMed publications on ChatGPT or artificial intelligence (AI) involvement in scientific or medical writing and investigate whether ChatGPT or AI was used to create these articles or listed as authors.

Design/methodology/approach

This scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A PubMed database search was performed for articles published between January 1 and November 29, 2023, using appropriate search terms; both authors performed screening and selection independently.

Findings

From the initial search results of 127 articles, 41 were eligible for final analysis. Articles were published in 34 journals. Editorials were the most common article type, with 15 (36.6%) articles. Authors originated from 27 countries, and authors from the USA contributed the most, with 14 (34.1%) articles. The most discussed topic was AI tools and writing capabilities in 19 (46.3%) articles. AI or ChatGPT was involved in manuscript preparation in 31 (75.6%) articles. None of the articles listed AI or ChatGPT as an author, and in 19 (46.3%) articles, the authors acknowledged utilizing AI or ChatGPT.

Practical implications

Researchers worldwide are concerned with AI or ChatGPT involvement in scientific research, specifically the writing process. The authors believe that precise and mature regulations will be developed soon by journals, publishers and editors, which will pave the way for the best usage of these tools.

Originality/value

This scoping review expressed data published on using AI or ChatGPT in various scientific research and writing aspects, besides alluding to the advantages, disadvantages and implications of their usage.