Cited by 56Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

ChatGPT: standard reporting guidelines for responsible use

Cacciamani, Giovanni E., Collins, Gary S., Gill, Inderbir S.·2023·Nature

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/d41586-023-01853-w

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cacciamani, G. E., Collins, G. S., & Gill, I. S.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Cacciamani, Giovanni E.
Venue
Nature
Published
2023-06-06
Volume
618
Issue
7964
Pages
238-238
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W4379514544
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 7
FWCI
14.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Cancer Research UK (27294)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, responsible use, reporting guidelines, artificial intelligence in research, research integrity

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