Cited by 50Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityDigital Economy and Work TransformationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Impacts of generative artificial intelligence on the future of labor market: a systematic review

Open access
Salari, Nader, Beiromvand, Mahan, Hosseinian-Far, Amin, Habibi, Javad, Babajani, Fateme, Mohammadi, Masoud·2025·Computers in Human Behavior Reports

Abstract

Background Generative AI (GenAI) has the ability to autonomously collect and process data to generate contents, inform decisions, solve problems, and perform tasks that typically require human reasoning. This Systematic Review is conducted to examine the impacts of GenAI on the future of employment, focusing on concerns about rising unemployment, and the positive and negative perspectives outlined within exiting studies. The findings from this review can help identify research gaps, guide organizational planning, and improve AI governance frameworks and policies. Methods To identify relevant studies, the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases and repositories were systematically searched using the keywords: ‘Future of work’, ‘Job market’, ‘Generative AI’, ‘Generative AI’, and ‘ChatGPT’. Additionally, the reference lists of the identified related articles were reviewed for grey literature. Results Following the PRISMA guidelines, a total of 14 articles were selected for analysis. Selected studies have examined the positive and negative viewpoints on GenAI, together with pertinent challenges and opportunities. Accordingly, GenAI, when compliant with security and ethical issues, has the potential to increase efficiency whilst reducing costs and time. Conclusion Considering the rapid growth and adoption of AI technologies, examining the impacts of GenAI on the future of labor market is crucial. GenAI is likely to create new roles in some sectors yet reduce opportunities in others. A nuanced assessment of the impacts, and ongoing monitoring are vital for effective preparation and adaptation to the evolving work landscape in the presence of advanced AI technologies.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review synthesized 14 studies on generative AI’s impacts on the future labor market, finding both positive potential—such as efficiency gains and cost/time reductions—and negative concerns including job displacement, inequality, and ethical/security risks. It concludes that GenAI may create new roles in some sectors while reducing opportunities in others, requiring nuanced assessment and ongoing monitoring.

Key findings

  • From 1,683 database/repository records plus 15 manual records, 230 duplicates were removed, 723 articles were excluded at title/abstract screening, and 731 were excluded after full-text examination, leaving 14 studies for final evaluation.
  • The review reports that GenAI, when compliant with security and ethical issues, has the potential to increase efficiency while reducing costs and time; positive viewpoints included improved scientific writing, healthcare responses, recruitment, education, and possible reduction of gender discrimination.
  • Negative viewpoints and challenges included plagiarism and inaccuracy, need for human oversight, unequal access/digital divide, job insecurity, privacy and legal risks, hiring bias, possible exacerbation of the gender gap, automation/unemployment concerns, and widening inequalities.
  • Cited evidence within the review includes Frey and Osborne’s prediction that AI could replace 47% of jobs in the United States; job-loss risk in low- and middle-income countries of 69% in India, 72% in Thailand, 77% in China, and 85% in Ethiopia; and Ayers et al.’s finding that chatbot responses were rated higher quality and more empathetic than physician responses (chatbot: 78.5%, 95% CI 72.3%–84.1%; physicians: 22.1%, 95% CI 16.4%–28.2%).

Methods

  • PRISMA-guided systematic review; PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords including “Future of Work,” “Job Market,” “Generative AI,” and “ChatGPT”; initial search was June 17, 2023, updated June 22, 2023, with no publication-year restriction and English-only inclusion.
  • Inclusion required studies explicitly examining GenAI’s role in employment trends, job displacement, job creation, or workforce transformation, with full-text availability and sufficient data; reviews, duplicates, non-English articles, and studies lacking sufficient data were excluded.
  • Quality was assessed with the 32-item STROBE checklist, with scores of 16 or above deemed average/high quality; two researchers independently screened and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements; final synthesis was narrative because heterogeneity and lack of quantitative evidence precluded meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that rapid expansion of GenAI platforms and studies makes cross-sectional systematic reviews challenging; there were limited available articles at the final search; most selected articles emphasized high-income countries, limiting generalizability; English-only inclusion may overlook other insights; some studies were excluded for low quality; data and measurement gaps make predicting overall effects difficult; and heterogeneity plus lack of quantitative evidence prevented meta-analysis.
  • Evident from the text: the search was completed in June 2023, so later GenAI studies are not captured, and most reviewed studies were analytically descriptive and published in 2023, limiting the empirical strength of the synthesized evidence.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100652

Cites

128 of 129 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 27 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingnone given
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    The majority of selected articles have an emphasis on high-income countries.

    “In addition, the majority of selected articles have an emphasis on high-income countries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    AI may cause employees to undertake the remaining stressful tasks, since other activities are now being handled by AI.

    “However, AI may cause employees to undertake the remaining stressful tasks, since other activities are now being handled by AI (Wisskirchen et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wisskirchen et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    The emphasis of the majority of selected articles on high-income countries may limit the generalizability of the current synthesized evidence.

    “This may limit the generalizability of the current synthesized evidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationnone given
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    There are data and measurement gaps in the field of GenAI, making it challenging to predict the overall effect of GenAI on the future of jobs and the labor market.

    “There are also the data and measurement gaps in the field of GenAI, making it challenging to predict the overall effect of GenAI on the future of jobs and the labor market.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 49
  • May combine two claims. 20
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    An additional 15 related articles were identified through a manual search.

    “An additional 15 related articles were also identified through a manual search.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    723 articles were excluded based on titles and abstracts.

    “In the screening stage, the titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were examined, resulting in the exclusion of 723 articles, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning
    § 1. Background, research gap, and rationale · p. 3

    There is a lack of comprehensive reviews in the current body of literature.

    “Moreover, the existing studies are often fragmented in nature, and there is lack of comprehensive reviews in the current body of literature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    Finally, 14 studies were included for the final evaluation.

    “Finally, 14 studies were included for the final evaluation.”
    • Also stated in: § A B S T R A C T · p. 1 · plain
      “Following the PRISMA guidelines, a total of 14 articles were selected for analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 1. Background, research gap, and rationale · p. 3

    Existing research remains fragmented, context-specific, and often focused solely on either the positive or negative impacts of GenAI adoption.

    “Although several studies have examined the adoption of GenAI in different sectors and assessed their potential effects on the future of the labor market, existing research remains fragmented, context-specific, and often focused solely on either the positive or negative impacts of GenAI adoption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    Most of the reviewed studies are analytically descriptive and were published in 2023.

    “Most of the reviewed studies are analytically descriptive and were published in 2023 (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    230 articles were omitted due to duplication.

    “However, 230 articles were omitted due to duplication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 1

    Selected studies have examined the positive and negative viewpoints on GenAI, together with pertinent challenges and opportunities.

    “Selected studies have examined the positive and negative viewpoints on GenAI, together with pertinent challenges and opportunities.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § 3. Results · p. 4

    Following the initial search, a total of 1683 articles were identified through the search of selected databases and repositories.

    “Following the initial search, a total of 1683 articles were identified through the search of selected databases and repositories.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    There was a limited number of available articles in this field at the time of the final search.

    “Accordingly, there was a limited number of available articles in this field at the time of the final search.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    A number of studies were excluded from this Systematic Review due to their low quality.

    “Furthermore, a number of studies were excluded from this Systematic Review due to their low quality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 1

    GenAI has the ability to autonomously collect and process data to generate contents, inform decisions, solve problems, and perform tasks that typically require human reasoning.

    “Generative AI (GenAI) has the ability to autonomously collect and process data to generate contents, inform decisions, solve problems, and perform tasks that typically require human reasoning.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Background, research gap, and rationale · p. 2 · plain
      “GenAI models utilize deep learning and neural networks to generate content and analyze data, providing human-like responses (Biswas, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Biswas, 2023 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § 2.3. Quality evaluation · p. 4

    To evaluate the quality of the articles, the STROBE checklist was used, comprising 32 items.

    “To evaluate the quality of the articles, a checklist suitable for observational studies was adopted. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist (STROBE) was used, which comprises of six scales: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. In total, this checklist consists of 32 subscales (items).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 1

    GenAI is likely to create new roles in some sectors yet reduce opportunities in others.

    “GenAI is likely to create new roles in some sectors yet reduce opportunities in others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The advent of GenAI has already demonstrated a significant impact on the nature of job roles and the evolution of workplace tasks.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2.2. Study selection and data extraction · p. 4

    In cases where there was a difference of opinion between two researchers, the review of the article was completed with the support of a third reviewer to reach consensus.

    “In cases where there was a difference of opinion between two researchers, the review of the article was completed with the support of a third reviewer to reach consensus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    Salvagno et al. (2023) reported that ChatGPT is capable of producing early drafts and addressing general pertinent considerations.

    “ChatGPT is capable of producing early drafts and addressing general pertinent considerations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Salvagno et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § 2.2. Study selection and data extraction · p. 4

    Reviews and data extraction from selected studies were completed by two researchers independently to avoid bias.

    “Reviews and data extraction from selected studies were completed by two researchers independently.”
    • Also stated in: § 2.2. Study selection and data extraction · p. 4 · plain
      “to avoid bias, all the steps of the review process and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    Salvagno et al. (2023) reported that the use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, can help researchers to be more efficient in writing scientific articles.

    “They reported that the use of Generative AI, such as ChatGPT, can help researchers to be more efficient in writing scientific articles.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Salvagno et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A B S T R A C T · p. 1

    GenAI, when compliant with security and ethical issues, has the potential to increase efficiency whilst reducing costs and time.

    “Accordingly, GenAI, when compliant with security and ethical issues, has the potential to increase efficiency whilst reducing costs and time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § 2. Materials, and methods · p. 3

    This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA protocol and reporting guidelines.

    “This Systematic Review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and reporting guidelines.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    Ayers et al. (2023) reported that responses generated by chatbots were often of higher quality and more empathetic than those provided by doctors.

    “The responses generated by chatbots were often of higher quality and more empathetic than those provided by doctors”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ayers et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Schulte Steinberg and Hohenberger (2023) argued that AI may play a role in reducing gender discrimination in the workplace.

    “In the study by Schulte Steinberg and Hohenberger (2023), it is argued that AI may play a role in reducing gender discrimination in the workplace.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schulte Steinberg and Hohenberger (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    AI has the ability to take over hazardous and mundane tasks, allowing humans to spend more time on meaningful and innovative activities.

    “AI has the ability to take over hazardous and mundane tasks, allowing humans to spend more time on meaningful and innovative activities (Jarrahi, 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jarrahi, 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    The study is the first systematic review on the potential impact of programs based on GenAI and its impacts on the future of jobs and the labor market.

    “To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first systematic review on the potential impact of programs based on GenAI and its impacts on the future of jobs and the labor market.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Al-Medfa et al. (2023) reported that doctors have a largely positive attitude towards the use of AI in their daily work, particularly those with multiple specialties.

    “Al-Medfa et al. (2023) reported that doctors, particularly those with multiple specialties, have a positive attitude towards the use of AI in their daily work.”
    • Also stated in: § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7 · plain
      “Despite of the adoption of AI in the field of medicine the attitude of largely positive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Al-Medfa et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7. Conclusion · p. 11

    GenAI may create new specializations in content creation, leading to new job opportunities for people with AI-related knowledge.

    “On the other hand, GenAI may create new specializations in content creation, leading to new job opportunities for people with AI-related knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.1. Future research pathways · p. 11

    Generative AI, as a powerful and multi-functional tool, will bring fundamental changes in the societies and businesses around the world.

    “In general, Generative AI, as a powerful and multi-functional tool, will bring fundamental changes in the societies and businesses around the world.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6.2. Study limitations · p. 11

    The rapid expansion of GenAI platforms, techniques, and studies related to GenAI would make cross-sectional systematic reviews such as this one challenging.

    “The rapid expansion of GenAI platforms, techniques, and also studies related to GenAI would make cross-sectional systematic reviews such as this one challenging.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7. Conclusion · p. 11

    One of the key contributions of Generative AI is the ability to generate content.

    “One of the key contributions of this technology is the ability to generate content.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    Salvagno et al. (2023) reported that ChatGPT can assist researchers in conducting literature review and instigating research on various topics.

    “In addition, ChatGPT can assist researchers in conducting literature review and instigating research on various topics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Salvagno et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    Research shows that using a chatbot to draft responses, later edited by doctors, can help improve the quality of healthcare.

    “Moreover, research shows that using a chatbot to draft responses, that are later edited by doctors, can help improve the quality of healthcare.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    AI, as a useful tool, can help improve employees' performance by providing individual feedback, thereby clearly playing a helpful and positive role in the work environment.

    “AI, as a useful tool, can help improve employees ' performance by providing individual feedback, thereby clearly playing a helpful and positive role in the work environment (Jain et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jain et al., 2022 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Shao et al. (2022) found that the primary impacts of AI integration in manufacturing include an increase in demand for high-skilled labor and a relative reduction in demand for low-skilled workers, along with increased investments in research and development.

    “The primary impacts include an increase in demand for high-skilled labor and a relative reduction in demand for low-skilled workers, along with increased investments in research and development”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shao et al. (2022) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Khurana and Vaddi (2023) reported that the use of ChatGPT has the potential to enhance the production of scientific content by increasing response speed, thus saving users' time.

    “Khurana and Vaddi (2023) reported that the use of ChatGPT has the potential to enhance the production of scientific content by increasing response speed, thus saving users ' time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Khurana and Vaddi (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Berretta et al. (2023) emphasized that focusing on people can enable individuals to achieve desired organizational outcomes.

    “Moreover, it is emphasized that focusing on people can enable individuals to achieve desired organizational outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berretta et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Shao et al. (2022) reported that integration with other job analysis methods can provide more precise insights into the work environment and improve decision-making.

    “integration with other job analysis methods can provide more precise insights into the work environment and improve decision-making.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shao et al. (2022) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Al-Medfa et al. (2023) found that concerns regarding job security exist.

    “concerns regarding job security exist.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Al-Medfa et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Wach et al. (2023) identified seven main risks including AI market deregulation, poor information quality, privacy violations, social manipulation, economic inequalities, and other social and geopolitical risks.

    “This study identifies seven main risks including AI market deregulation, poor information quality, privacy violations, social manipulation, economic inequalities, and other social and geopolitical risks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wach et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    The rapid development of AI creates many economic benefits.

    “The rapid development of AI creates many economic benefits (Damioli et al., 2021; Sequeira et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Damioli et al., 2021 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sequeira et al., 2021 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 7. Conclusion · p. 11

    The use of Generative AI has significant effects on businesses and the labor market.

    “The use of Generative AI has significant effects on businesses and the labor market.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Berretta et al. (2023) reported that AI is a key driver of change in the business sector.

    “Berretta et al. (2023) reported that AI is a key driver of change in the business sector.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berretta et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Kanitz et al. (2023) showed how clinicians and health professionals can leverage GenAI tools to improve change processes, such as planning initiatives, mobilizing stakeholders, and monitoring progress.

    “Using a practical example of culture change, this article shows how clinicians and health professionals can leverage GenAI tools to improve change processes, such as planning initiatives, mobilizing stakeholders, and monitoring progress.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanitz et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 4

    The higher quality and more empathetic responses from chatbots can potentially increase productivity and reduce burnout in healthcare.

    “which can potentially increase productivity and reduce burnout in the field of healthcare.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Shao et al. (2022) demonstrated that the integration of AI with manufacturing activities leads to various changes in the labor market and employment structure.

    “This article examines the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology on employment structures in smart manufacturing companies, demonstrating that the integration of AI with manufacturing activities leads to various changes in the labor market and employment structure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shao et al. (2022) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7. Conclusion · p. 11

    In some industries and occupations, Generative AI may replace employees in content creation activities and related tasks, reducing job opportunities in these sectors.

    “In some industries and occupations, Generative AI may replace employees in content creation activities and related tasks, reducing job opportunities in these sectors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the risk of job loss due to AI is even higher than in advanced economies, with risks being 69% in India, 72% in Thailand, 77% in China, and 85% in Ethiopia.

    “In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the risk of job loss due to AI is even higher than in advanced economies, with risks being 69 % in India, 72 % in Thailand, 77 % in China, and 85 % in Ethiopia (Ernst et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ernst et al., 2019 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6. Discussion · p. 10

    The integration of AI in healthcare improves the quality and efficiency of services, making it a useful and effective assistant in related activities.

    “For instance, the integration of AI in healthcare improves the quality and efficiency of services, making it a useful and effective assistant in related activities (Hazarika, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hazarika, 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisecitation
    § Table 2 ( continued ) · p. 7

    Kanitz et al. (2023) emphasized the need for training and skill acquisition for various stakeholders due to the increasing capability and versatility of GenAI systems.

    “due to the increasing capability and versatility of GenAI systems, the need for training and skill acquisition for various is emphasized in this study”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kanitz et al. (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Fatani (2023) emphasized that the use of ChatGPT in scientific research, especially in medicine and dentistry, supports text translation, article summarization, and the creation of automatic drafts, reducing time and effort required.

    “Fatani (2023) emphasized that the use of ChatGPT in scientific research, especially in the fields of medicine and dentistry, supports text translation, article summarization, and the creation of automatic drafts, reducing time and effort required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fatani (2023)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Chen (2023) reported that employers and other stakeholders have positive opinions about the use of AI in the recruitment process.

    “Chen (2023) also highlights the positive opinions of employers and other stakeholders about the use of AI in the recruitment process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 7. Conclusion · p. 11

    Changes in the labor market can lead to the creation of new job opportunities for people with appropriate expertise.

    “Employees may also need more flexibility to cope with changes in the labor market, and these changes can lead to the creation of new job opportunities for people with appropriate expertise.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    Chen (2023) reported that study participants believed that AI could improve the recruitment process, enabling the creation of optimal recruitment plans.

    “The study participants believed that AI could improve the recruitment process, enabling the creation of optimal recruitment plans.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen (2023) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1. Positive viewpoint · p. 5

    In general, using ChatGPT in scientific research can increase the efficiency and speed of the research process, contributing to the advancement of scientific fields.

    “In general, using ChatGPT in scientific research can increase the efficiency and speed of the research process, contributing to the advancement of scientific fields.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
53 of 53
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The advent of GenAI has already demonstrated a significant impact on the nature of job roles and the evolution of workplace tasks.

    “The advent of GenAL, along with a plethora of other emerging platforms and tools, has already demonstrated a significant impact on the nature of job roles and the evolution of workplace tasks.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AI is capable of performing tasks that are challenging for humans.

    “AI is capable of performing tasks that are challenging for humans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Technologies that improve work efficiency are not necessarily intrinsically superior, and experimental technologies in the workplace may sometimes have a negative impact on the work environment.

    “However, technologies that improve work efficiency are not necessarily intrinsically superior; Experimental technologies in the workplace may sometimes have a negative impact on the work environment.”
3 of 3

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Paper outline gives incorrect section numbers

    Minor

    The outline assigns the discussion to Section 4 and the conclusion to Section 5. The actual headings place them in Sections 6 and 7, respectively.

  • Results text points to the wrong table

    Minor

    The results text says Table 1 summarizes evidence from the selected studies, but Table 1 contains search strings. The study characteristics and results appear in Table 2.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Chan, 2022, Vol. 39, 1027
  2. Georgieff, 2022, AI and employment: New cross-country evidence, Frontiers in AI, 5
  3. Giansanti, 2022, Vol. 11907
  4. Schlogl, 2018, Vol. 487
  5. Tyson, 2022, Automation, AI & work, Dædalus, 151, 256
  6. Warning, 2022, On the impact of digitalization and AI on employers' flexibility requirements in occupations—empirical evidence for Germany, Frontiers in AI, 5
  7. Wisskirchen, 2017, AI and robotics and their impact on the workplace, IBA Global Employment Institute, 11, 49

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salari, N., Beiromvand, M., Hosseinian-Far, A., Habibi, J., Babajani, F., & Mohammadi, M.
Affiliations
  • Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Jahrom University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Mohammadi, Masoud
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
18
Pages
100652
ISSN
2451-9588 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408482048
Cited by
49
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 11
FWCI
13.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, future of work, labor market, unemployment, job displacement, AI governance, ChatGPT, AI ethics, AI security, workforce adaptation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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