人工智能在撰写关于 COVID-19 对肌肉骨骼健康影响的科学评论文章中的实用性。

IF 4.3 2区 医学
Current Osteoporosis Reports Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-13 DOI:10.1007/s11914-023-00855-x
Olatundun D Awosanya, Alexander Harris, Amy Creecy, Xian Qiao, Angela J Toepp, Thomas McCune, Melissa A Kacena, Marie V Ozanne
{"title":"人工智能在撰写关于 COVID-19 对肌肉骨骼健康影响的科学评论文章中的实用性。","authors":"Olatundun D Awosanya, Alexander Harris, Amy Creecy, Xian Qiao, Angela J Toepp, Thomas McCune, Melissa A Kacena, Marie V Ozanne","doi":"10.1007/s11914-023-00855-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>There were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Unfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":48750,"journal":{"name":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","volume":" ","pages":"146-151"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912275/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Utility of AI in Writing a Scientific Review Article on the Impacts of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Health.\",\"authors\":\"Olatundun D Awosanya, Alexander Harris, Amy Creecy, Xian Qiao, Angela J Toepp, Thomas McCune, Melissa A Kacena, Marie V Ozanne\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11914-023-00855-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>There were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Unfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Osteoporosis Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"146-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10912275/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Osteoporosis Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00855-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Osteoporosis Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-023-00855-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

审查目的:我们的审查有两个主要目的。第一,为科学界提供有关 COVID-19 对肌肉骨骼健康影响的最新信息。第二,确定在撰写科学评论文章的过程中使用大型语言模型 ChatGPT 4.0 的价值。为了实现这些目标,我们最初着手撰写了三篇有关该主题的综述文章,采用不同的方法来制作综述文章的初稿。第一篇综述文章是由人类以传统方式撰写的,第二篇是完全使用 ChatGPT 撰写的(纯人工智能或 AIO),第三种方法是将人类从方法 1 中选择的提纲和参考文献输入 ChatGPT,使用人工智能协助完成撰写(人工智能辅助或 AIA)。所有综述文章都由所有共同作者进行了广泛的事实核查和编辑,最终形成了与初稿有显著差异的稿件定稿:不幸的是,在这一过程中,对于 COVID-19 这样一个非常新的主题来说,方法 2 显然是不可行的,因为当时 ChatGPT 4.0 的截止日期是 2021 年 9 月,在此日期之后发表的所有文章都必须提供给 ChatGPT,这使得方法 2 和方法 3 几乎完全相同。因此,我们只撰写了两种方法和两篇评论文章(人工智能和人工智能辅助)。在这里,我们发现纯人工方法比人工智能辅助方法花费的时间更少。这主要是由于对人工智能辅助稿件进行事实检查和编辑所需的小时数。值得注意的是,人工智能辅助方法导致参考文献归属不准确(约20%),而且相似度指数较高,表明抄袭风险增加。本项目的主要目的是确定人工智能的使用能否改善科学评论文章的写作过程。根据我们的经验,就目前的技术水平而言,不建议只使用人工智能来撰写科学评论文章,尤其是近期的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Utility of AI in Writing a Scientific Review Article on the Impacts of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Health.

Purpose of review: There were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts.

Recent findings: Unfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Osteoporosis Reports
Current Osteoporosis Reports ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
2.30%
发文量
44
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信