{"title":"Using AI to Write a Review Article Examining the Role of the Nervous System on Skeletal Homeostasis and Fracture Healing","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11914-023-00854-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose of Review</h3> <p>Three review articles have been written that discuss the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems in fracture healing. While content among the articles is overlapping, there is a key difference between them: the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In one paper, the first draft was written solely by humans. In the second paper, the first draft was written solely by AI using ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO). In the third paper, the first draft was written using ChatGPT 4.0 but the literature references were supplied from the human-written paper (AI-assisted or AIA). This project was done to evaluate the capacity of AI to conduct scientific writing. Importantly, all manuscripts were fact checked and extensively edited by all co-authors rendering the final manuscript drafts significantly different from the first drafts.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Recent Findings</h3> <p>Unsurprisingly, the use of AI decreased the time spent to write a review. The two AI-written reviews took less time to write than the human-written paper; however, the changes and editing required in all three manuscripts were extensive. The human-written paper was edited the most. On the other hand, the AI-only paper was the most inaccurate with inappropriate reference usage and the AI-assisted paper had the greatest incidence of plagiarism.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Summary</h3> <p>These findings show that each style of writing presents its own unique set of challenges and advantages. While AI can theoretically write scientific reviews, from these findings, the extent of editing done subsequently, the inaccuracy of the claims it makes, and the plagiarism by AI are all factors to be considered and a primary reason why it may be several years into the future before AI can present itself as a viable alternative for traditional scientific writing.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":11080,"journal":{"name":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00854-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of Review
Three review articles have been written that discuss the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems in fracture healing. While content among the articles is overlapping, there is a key difference between them: the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In one paper, the first draft was written solely by humans. In the second paper, the first draft was written solely by AI using ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO). In the third paper, the first draft was written using ChatGPT 4.0 but the literature references were supplied from the human-written paper (AI-assisted or AIA). This project was done to evaluate the capacity of AI to conduct scientific writing. Importantly, all manuscripts were fact checked and extensively edited by all co-authors rendering the final manuscript drafts significantly different from the first drafts.
Recent Findings
Unsurprisingly, the use of AI decreased the time spent to write a review. The two AI-written reviews took less time to write than the human-written paper; however, the changes and editing required in all three manuscripts were extensive. The human-written paper was edited the most. On the other hand, the AI-only paper was the most inaccurate with inappropriate reference usage and the AI-assisted paper had the greatest incidence of plagiarism.
Summary
These findings show that each style of writing presents its own unique set of challenges and advantages. While AI can theoretically write scientific reviews, from these findings, the extent of editing done subsequently, the inaccuracy of the claims it makes, and the plagiarism by AI are all factors to be considered and a primary reason why it may be several years into the future before AI can present itself as a viable alternative for traditional scientific writing.
期刊介绍：
This journal intends to provide clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts that review the most important, recently published clinical findings related to the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of osteoporosis.
We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as current and future therapeutics, epidemiology and pathophysiology, and evaluation and management. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
