The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Artificial intelligence in scientific medical writing: Legitimate and deceptive uses and ethical concerns
Open accessAbstract
The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Prior studies have mostly discussed potential applications and ethical implications of LLMs for scientific writing in medicine overall and, when performance was measured, analyzed often only one (typically proprietary) LLM.
“Prior studies have mostly discussed potential applications and ethical implications of LLMs for scientific writing in medicine overall and – when performance was measured – analyzed often only one (typically proprietary) LLM.12–17”
From Open-source versus proprietary large language models for academic writing in medicine: A controlled evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-o1 in neuroradiology (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Sections 2.2–2.3 and 3 discuss applications and ethical concerns of LLMs in scientific medical writing, supporting that part of the citation. The paper does not establish that prior writing-performance studies often evaluated only one, typically proprietary, LLM; its multi-model performance table concerns medical question answering instead. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.13138 · Cited by 4,083
ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z · Cited by 868
Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis
Macdonald, C., Adeloye, D., Sheikh, A., & Rudan, I. (2023) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.13.01003 · Cited by 243
ChatGPT use shows that the grant-application system is broken
Parrilla, J. M. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03238-5 · Cited by 20
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Briganti G. How ChatGPT works: a mini review. European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology: official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies. 2023. · DOI
- Sanderson, 2024, Science's fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills, Nature, 626, 17, 10.1038/d41586-024-00159-9 · DOI
- Kiester, 2022, Artificial intelligence behind the scenes: PubMed's Best Match algorithm, Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110, 15, 10.5195/jmla.2022.1236 · DOI
- Ingley, 2023, Leveraging AI tools to develop the writer rather than the writing, Trends in ecology & evolution, 38, 785, 10.1016/j.tree.2023.05.007 · DOI
- Brainard, 2023, New tools show promise for tackling paper mills, Science, 380, 568, 10.1126/science.adi6513 · DOI
- Gao, 2023, Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers, NPJ digital medicine, 6, 75, 10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Ioannidis, 2005, Why most published research findings are false, PLoS Med, 2, e124, 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · DOI · Paper page
- Zhang, 2023, A Critical Review of Inductive Logic Programming Techniques for Explainable AI, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems
- O'Connor, 2023, Corrigendum to “Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?”, Nurse Educ. Pract., 66
- 2023, Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use, Nature, 613, 612, 10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Telenti, 2024, Large language models for science and medicine, European journal of clinical investigation, e14183, 10.1111/eci.14183 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eminovic, S., Levita, B., Schmidt, R., Lindholz, M., Desser, D., Penzkofer, T., Wattjes, M. P., & Nawabi, J. (2026) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076261464745
Metadata
- Authors
- Ramoni, D., Sgura, C., Liberale, L., Montecucco, F., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Carbone, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Genoa (IT)
- Ospedale Policlinico San Martino (IT)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carbone, Federico
- Venue
- European Journal of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- 127
- Pages
- 31-35
- ISSN
- 0953-6205 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4400952216
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 3.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ministero della Salute
- Ministero dell'Istruzione dell'Universita e della Ricerca
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, scientific writing, medical writing, AI ethics, ChatGPT, large language models, transformer models, AI-generated text, research integrity
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Medical Writing
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