Does chatGPT (or any other artificial intelligence language tool) deserve to be included in authorship list?

ChatGPT as an Inventor: Does It Make Sense?

Collapse

Large Language Models and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons on the Demonstrated and Potential Applications, Promises, and Limitations of ChatGPT

BACKGROUND

The rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence (AI) holds great potential for plastic surgeons. ChatGPT, a recently released AI large language model (LLM), promises applications across many disciplines, including healthcare.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article was to provide a primer for plastic surgeons on AI, LLM, and ChatGPT, including an analysis of current demonstrated and proposed clinical applications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed identifying medical and surgical literature on ChatGPT's proposed clinical applications. Variables assessed included applications investigated, command tasks provided, user input information, AI-emulated human skills, output validation, and reported limitations.

RESULTS

The analysis included 175 articles reporting on 13 plastic surgery applications and 116 additional clinical applications, categorized by field and purpose. Thirty-four applications within plastic surgery are thus proposed, with relevance to different target audiences, including attending plastic surgeons (n = 17, 50%), trainees/educators (n = 8, 24.0%), researchers/scholars (n = 7, 21%), and patients (n = 2, 6%). The 15 identified limitations of ChatGPT were categorized by training data, algorithm, and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread use of ChatGPT in plastic surgery will depend on rigorous research of proposed applications to validate performance and address limitations. This systemic review aims to guide research, development, and regulation to safely adopt AI in plastic surgery.

ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing

Those who participate in and contribute to academic publishing are affected by its evolution. Funding bodies, academic institutions, researchers and peer-reviewers, junior scholars, freelance language editors, language-editing services, and journal editors are to enforce and uphold the ethical norms on which academic publishing is founded. Deviating from such norms will challenge and threaten the scholarly reputation, academic careers, and institutional standing; reduce the publishers' true impacts; squander public funding; and erode the public trust to the academic enterprise. Rigorous review is paramount because peer-review norms guarantee that scientific findings are scrutinized before being publicized. Volunteer peer-reviewers and guest journal editors devote an immense amount of unremunerated time to reviewing papers, voluntarily serving the scientific community, and benefiting the publishers. Some mega-journals are motivated to mass-produce publications and attract the funded projects instead of maintaining the scientific rigor. The rapid development of mega-journals may diminish some traditional journals by outcompeting their impacts. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools/algorithms such as ChatGPT may be misused to contribute to the mass-production of publications which may have not been rigorously revised or peer-reviewed. Maintaining norms that guarantee scientific rigor and academic integrity enable the academic community to overcome the new challenges such as mega-journals and AI tools.

Academic publisher guidelines on AI usage: A ChatGPT supported thematic analysis

Background

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI (GenAI) have become more common in academic settings, it is necessary to examine how these tools interact with issues of authorship, academic integrity, and research methodologies. The current landscape lacks cohesive policies and guidelines for regulating AI's role in academic research which has prompted discussions among publishers, authors, and institutions.

Methods

This study employs inductive thematic analysis to explore publisher policies regarding AI-assisted authorship and academic work. Our methods involved a two-fold analysis using both AI-assisted and traditional unassisted techniques to examine the available policies from leading academic publishers and other publishing or academic entities. The framework was designed to offer multiple perspectives, harnessing the strengths of AI for pattern recognition while leveraging human expertise for nuanced interpretation. The results of these two analyses are combined to form the final themes.

Results

Our findings indicate six overall themes, three of which were independently identified in both the AI-assisted and unassisted, manual analysis using common software tools. A broad consensus appears among publishers that human authorship remains paramount and that the use of GenAI tools is permissible but must be disclosed. However, GenAI tools are increasingly acknowledged for their supportive roles, including text generation and data analysis. The study also discusses the inherent limitations and biases of AI-assisted analysis, necessitating rigorous scrutiny by authors, reviewers, and editors.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition of AI's role as a valuable auxiliary tool in academic research, but one that comes with caveats pertaining to integrity, accountability, and interpretive limitations. This study used a novel analysis supported by GenAI tools to identify themes emerging in the policy landscape, underscoring the need for an informed, flexible approach to policy formulation that can adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technologies.

Critical evaluation of applications of artificial intelligence based linguistic models in Occupational Health

This article explores the impact and potential applications of large language models in Occupational Medicine. Large language models have the ability to provide support for medical decision-making, patient screening, summarization and creation of technical, scientific, and legal documents, training and education for doctors and occupational health teams, as well as patient education, potentially leading to lower costs, reduced time expenditure, and a lower incidence of human errors. Despite promising results and a wide range of applications, large language models also have significant limitations in terms of their accuracy, the risk of generating false information, and incorrect recommendations. Various ethical aspects that have not been well elucidated by the medical and academic communities should also be considered, and the lack of regulation by government entities can create areas of legal uncertainty regarding their use in Occupational Medicine and in the legal environment. Significant future improvements can be expected in these models in the coming years, and further studies on the applications of large language models in Occupational Medicine should be encouraged.

Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence based tool developed by OpenAI (California, USA). This systematic review examines the potential of ChatGPT in patient care and its role in medical research.

METHODS

The systematic review was done according to the PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Google Scholar data bases were searched. We also searched preprint data bases. Our search was aimed to identify all kinds of publications, without any restrictions, on ChatGPT and its application in medical research, medical publishing and patient care. We used search term "ChatGPT". We reviewed all kinds of publications including original articles, reviews, editorial/ commentaries, and even letter to the editor. Each selected records were analysed using ChatGPT and responses generated were compiled in a table. The word table was transformed in to a PDF and was further analysed using ChatPDF.

RESULTS

We reviewed full texts of 118 articles. ChatGPT can assist with patient enquiries, note writing, decision-making, trial enrolment, data management, decision support, research support, and patient education. But the solutions it offers are usually insufficient and contradictory, raising questions about their originality, privacy, correctness, bias, and legality. Due to its lack of human-like qualities, ChatGPT's legitimacy as an author is questioned when used for academic writing. ChatGPT generated contents have concerns with bias and possible plagiarism.

CONCLUSION

Although it can help with patient treatment and research, there are issues with accuracy, authorship, and bias. ChatGPT can serve as a "clinical assistant" and be a help in research and scholarly writing.