CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic Writing and PublishingArtificial Intelligence in Education

Use of large language models as artificial intelligence tools in academic research and publishing among global clinical researchers

Open access
Mishra, Tanisha, Sutanto, Edward, Rossanti, Rini, Pant, Nayana, Ashraf, Anum, Raut, Akshay, Uwabareze, Germaine, Oluwatomiwa, Ajayi +1 more·2024·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-81370-6PMC PMC11685435
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With breakthroughs in Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence (AI), the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) in academic research has increased tremendously. Models such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) are used by researchers in literature review, abstract screening, and manuscript drafting. However, these models also present the attendant challenge of providing ethically questionable scientific information. Our study provides a snapshot of global researchers' perception of current trends and future impacts of LLMs in research. Using a cross-sectional design, we surveyed 226 medical and paramedical researchers from 59 countries across 65 specialties, trained in the Global Clinical Scholars' Research Training certificate program of Harvard Medical School between 2020 and 2024. Majority (57.5%) of these participants practiced in an academic setting with a median of 7 (2,18) PubMed Indexed published articles. 198 respondents (87.6%) were aware of LLMs and those who were aware had higher number of publications (p < 0.001). 18.7% of the respondents who were aware (n = 37) had previously used LLMs in publications especially for grammatical errors and formatting (64.9%); however, most (40.5%) did not acknowledge its use in their papers. 50.8% of aware respondents (n = 95) predicted an overall positive future impact of LLMs while 32.6% were unsure of its scope. 52% of aware respondents (n = 102) believed that LLMs would have a major impact in areas such as grammatical errors and formatting (66.3%), revision and editing (57.2%), writing (57.2%) and literature review (54.2%). 58.1% of aware respondents were opined that journals should allow for use of AI in research and 78.3% believed that regulations should be put in place to avoid its abuse. Seeing the perception of researchers towards LLMs and the significant association between awareness of LLMs and number of published works, we emphasize the importance of developing comprehensive guidelines and ethical framework to govern the use of AI in academic research and address the current challenges.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-024-81370-6

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A global survey of clinical researchers (n = 226) found that although about 88% were aware of LLMs, only 19% had used them in publications, mostly for grammar and formatting, and most did not acknowledge their use.

    “However, a global survey of clinical researchers (n = 226) found that although about 88% were aware of LLMs, only 19% had used them in publications, mostly for grammar and formatting, and most did not acknowledge their use (Mishra et al., 2024).”

    From How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Mishra et al., 2024

    The Abstract and Results report 226 respondents, 87.6% awareness, and publication use by 18.7% of those aware, most commonly for grammar and formatting (64.9%). But the Discussion says about 40% of users did not acknowledge LLM use—not most. The 19% figure also applies to aware respondents, rather than all 226 surveyed. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]Naveed, H. et al. A comprehensive overview of large language models. (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06435. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mishra, T., Sutanto, E., Rossanti, R., Pant, N., Ashraf, A., Raut, A., Uwabareze, G., Oluwatomiwa, A., & Zeeshan, B.
Affiliations
  • Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
  • University of Indonesia (ID)
  • Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital (ID)
  • Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Allama Iqbal Medical College (PK)
  • Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Zeeshan, Bushra
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-12-30
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
31672-31672
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-024-81370-6
PMC
PMC11685435
OpenAlex
W4405894594
Cited by
54
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 22
FWCI
5.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
World Health Organization
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
large language models, generative AI in research, researcher perceptions, clinical investigators, AI ethics, AI regulation, manuscript preparation, AI-assisted writing
MeSH terms
Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Natural Language Processing, Publishing, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Personnel, 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