Identification of Human-Generated vs AI-Generated Research Abstracts by Health Care Professionals
Open accessAbstract
This survey study assesses the ability of health care professionals to discern whether abstracts were written by investigators or by an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It takes a neural network to reliably catch another neural network.
“in practice, it takes a neural network to reliably catch another neural network.”
From Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Writing in the Biomedical Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
A bibliometric analysis of the rise of ChatGPT in medical research
Barrington, N. M., Gupta, N., Musmar, B., Doyle, D., Panico, N., Godbole, N., Reardon, T., & D’Amico, R. S. (2023) · Medical Sciences · doi:10.3390/medsci11030061 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Writing in the Biomedical Literature
She, R. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.01.697311 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ren, D., Tagg, A. J., Wilcox, H., & Roland, D.
- Affiliations
- Children's National (US)
- Sunshine Hospital (AU)
- National Health Service (GB)
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ren, Dennis
- Venue
- JAMA Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2024-06-01
- Volume
- 178
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 625
- ISSN
- 1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-6203
- PMC
- PMC11059037
- OpenAlex
- W4396217621
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 0.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- AI-generated text detection, AI chatbots, scientific abstracts, healthcare workers, authorship attribution
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Artificial Intelligence, Health Personnel, Humans, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
