CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 283Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic integrity and plagiarismEthics and Social Impacts of AI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Academic integrity and artificial intelligence: is ChatGPT hype, hero or heresy?

Currie, Geoffrey M.·2023·Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
DOI 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Academic integrity in both higher education and scientific writing has been challenged by developments in artificial intelligence. The limitations associated with algorithms have been largely overcome by the recently released ChatGPT; a chatbot powered by GPT-3.5 capable of producing accurate and human-like responses to questions in real-time. Despite the potential benefits, ChatGPT confronts significant limitations to its usefulness in nuclear medicine and radiology. Most notably, ChatGPT is prone to errors and fabrication of information which poses a risk to professionalism, ethics and integrity. These limitations simultaneously undermine the value of ChatGPT to the user by not producing outcomes at the expected standard. Nonetheless, there are a number of exciting applications of ChatGPT in nuclear medicine across education, clinical and research sectors. Assimilation of ChatGPT into practice requires redefining of norms, and re-engineering of information expectations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Awdry, 2022, International predictors of contract cheating in higher education, J Acad Ethics, 8, 1
  2. Hill, 2021, Contract cheating: An increasing challenge for global academic community arising from COVID-19, Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn, 16, 24, 10.1186/s41039-021-00166-8 · DOI
  3. Al Dhaen, 2022, The use of artificial intelligence in higher education —systematic review
  4. Stone, 2022, Student perceptions of academic integrity: A qualitative study of understanding, consequences, and impact, J Acad Ethics, 28, 1
  5. Tien, 2018, Detecting automatically generated sentences with grammatical structure similarity, Scientometrics, 116, 1247, 10.1007/s11192-018-2789-4 · DOI
  6. Van Noorden, 2021, Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature, Nature, 160, 10.1038/d41586-021-01436-7 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Eysenbach, 2023, The role of ChatGPT, generative language models, and artificial intelligence in medical education: A conversation with ChatGPT and a call for papers, JMIR Med Educ, 6, e46885, 10.2196/46885 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Sun, 2023, The ChatGPT Storm and What Faculty Can Do, Nurse Educ, 48, 119, 10.1097/NNE.0000000000001390 · DOI
  9. Currie, 2020, Ethical principles for the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 47, 748, 10.1007/s00259-020-04678-1 · DOI
  10. Currie, 2021, Ethical and legal challenges of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine, Semin Nucl Med, 51, 120, 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.08.001 · DOI
  11. Currie, 2022, Social asymmetry and artificial intelligence: The nuclear medicine landscape, Semin Nucl Med, 52, 498, 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.11.011 · DOI
  12. Currie, 2022, Radiation dosimetry, artificial intelligence and digital twins: old dog, new tricks, Semin Nucl Med, 52, 498, 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.11.011 · DOI
  13. Currie, 2023, The emerging role of artificial intelligence and digital twins in pre-clinical molecular imaging, Nucl Med Biol, 120-121, 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2023.108337 · DOI
  14. Katsnelson, 2022, Poor English skills? New AIs help researchers to write better, Nature, 609, 208, 10.1038/d41586-022-02767-9 · DOI
  15. O'Connor, 2023, Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?, Nurse Educ Pract, 66
  16. Zhavoronkov, 2022, Rapamycin in the context of Pascal's Wager: Generative pre-trained transformer perspective, Oncoscience, 9, 82, 10.18632/oncoscience.571 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Gpt, Thunström AO, Steingrimsson S. Can GPT-3 write an academic paper on itself, with minimal human input?. 2022; Available at: https://hal.science/hal-03701250. Accessed April 20, 2023.
  18. Shen, 2023, ChatGPT and other large language models are double-edged swords, Radiology, 307, 10.1148/radiol.230163 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Ma Y, Liu J, Yi F, et al. AI vs. human: Differentiation analysis of scientific content generation. arXiv. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2301/2301.10416.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2023.
  20. Else, 2023, Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists, Nature, 613, 423, 10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Patel, 2023, ChatGPT: The future of discharge summaries?, Lancet Digit Health, 5, e107, 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00021-3 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mann, 2023, Artificial intelligence discusses the role of artificial intelligence in translational medicine: A JACC: Basic to translational science interview with ChatGPT, JACC Basic Transl Sci, 8, 221, 10.1016/j.jacbts.2023.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Aubignat, 2022, Artificial intelligence and ChatGPT between worst enemy and best friend: The two faces of a revolution and its impact on science and medical schools, Rev Neurol (Paris), 179, 520, 10.1016/j.neurol.2023.03.004 · DOI
  24. Rahimi, 2023, ChatGPT and Publication Ethics, Arch Med Res, 54, 272, 10.1016/j.arcmed.2023.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ferres JML, Weeks WB, Chu LC, Rowe SP, Fishman EK. Beyond chatting: The opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in medicine and radiology. Diagn Interv Imaging, 104:263-264, 2023 · DOI
  26. Kleesiek, 2023, An opinion on ChatGPT in health care-written by humans only, J Nucl Med, 64, 701, 10.2967/jnumed.123.265687 · DOI
  27. Fijačko, 2023, Can ChatGPT pass the life support exams without entering the American heart association course?, Resuscitation, 185, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109732 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Bhattaram, 2023, ChatGPT: The next-gen tool for triaging?, Am J Emerg Med, 69, 215, 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.03.027 · DOI
  29. Teixeira da Silva, 2023, Is ChatGPT a valid author?, Nurse Educ Pract, 68, 10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103600 · DOI
  30. Currie, 2023, A conversation with ChatGPT, Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 123
  31. Ismail, 2023, New Horizons: The Potential Role of OpenAI's ChatGPT in Clinical Radiology, J Am Coll Radiol, 20, 696, 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.02.025 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Buvat, 2023, Nuclear medicine from a novel perspective: Buvat and Weber talk with OpenAI's ChatGPT, J Nucl Med, 64, 505, 10.2967/jnumed.123.265636 · DOI
  33. Rao, 2023, Evaluating ChatGPT as an Adjunct for Radiologic Decision-Making, medRxiv [Preprint]
  34. Currie, 2023, ChatGPT in Nuclear Medicine Education, J Nucl Med Technol, 123
  35. Gilson, 2023, How does ChatGPT perform on the United States Medical Licensing Examination? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment, JMIR Med Educ, 9, e45312, 10.2196/45312 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Currie, 2023, ChatGPT and patient information, J Med Radiat Sci
  37. Zheng, 2023, ChatGPT in scientific writing: a cautionary tale, Am J Med, S0002-9343, 00159
  38. Anderson, 2023, AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in sports & exercise medicine manuscript generation, BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med, 9, 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001568 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Salvagno, 2023, Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?, Crit Care, 27, 75, 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Ortega PA, Kunesch M, Delétang G, Genewein T, Grau-Moya J, Veness J, ... & Legg S. (2021). Shaking the foundations: delusions in sequence models for interaction and control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10819. PDF available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.10819.pdf · arXiv
  41. Saliba, 2023, ChatGPT, a radiologist's perspective, Pediatr Radiol, 53, 813, 10.1007/s00247-023-05656-z · DOI
  42. Graham, 2023, Daily briefing: What scientists think of GPT-4, the new AI chatbot, Nature
  43. Dunning, 2011, Chapter five – the Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance, Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 44, 247, 10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Currie, 2020, COVID19 impact on nuclear medicine: An Australian perspective, Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 47, 1623, 10.1007/s00259-020-04812-z · DOI
  45. Currie, 2020, Post-COVID19 “new normal” for nuclear medicine practice: An Australasian perspective (invited commentary), J Nucl Med Technol, 48, 234, 10.2967/jnmt.120.250365 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Currie, G. M.
Affiliations
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Corresponding author
Currie, Geoffrey M.
ORCID
Currie, Geoffrey M.
Venue
Seminars in Nuclear Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
53
Issue
5
Pages
719-730
ISSN
0001-2998 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.04.008
OpenAlex
W4377234252
Cited by
283
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 35
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Seminars in Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
ChatGPT, academic integrity, artificial intelligence, GPT-3.5, large language models, nuclear medicine education, radiology, scientific writing, professional ethics, clinical implementation of AI, artificial intelligence in research
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Nuclear Medicine

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