Artificial or Augmented Authorship? A Conversation with a Chatbot on Base of Thumb Arthritis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: ChatGPT is an open artificial intelligence chat box that could revolutionize academia and augment research writing. This study had an open conversation with ChatGPT and invited the platform to evaluate this article through series of five questions on base of thumb arthritis to test if its contributions and contents merely add artificial unusable input or help us augment the quality of the article. The information ChatGPT-3 provided was accurate, albeit surface-level, and lacks analytical ability to dissect for important limitations about base of thumb arthritis, which would not be conducive to potentiating creative ideas and solutions in plastic surgery. ChatGPT failed to provide relevant references and even “created” references instead of indicating its inability to perform the task. This highlights that as an AI-generator for medical publishing text, ChatGPT-3 should be used cautiously.
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
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?
In that study, most ChatGPT answers consisted of errors and surface-level information.
“Furthermore, most answers consisted of errors and surface-level information.”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
Only a minority of ChatGPT's provided references contained information applicable to the query.
“Only a minority of the provided references contained information applicable to the query.41)”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
In the present state, ChatGPT cannot be used as a diagnostic tool because the information generated by it on the subject is limited.
“However, in the present state, ChatGPT cannot be used as a diagnostic tool because the information generated by it on the subject is limited, as observed in a recent study where ChatGPT was unable to accurately answer patients’ frequently asked questions during their radiologist visits.”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
ChatGPT's provided references were inaccurate and could not be cross-referenced.
“Perhaps the biggest limitation was that the references provided were inaccurate and could not be cross-referenced.”
From Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
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
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
Else, H. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
A Conversation on Artificial Intelligence, Chatbots, and Plagiarism in Higher Education
King, M. R., & chatGPT (2023) · Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering · doi:10.1007/s12195-022-00754-8 · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?
O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Minimal Clinically Important Differences of 3 Patient-Rated Outcomes Instruments
Sorensen, A. A., Howard, D. R., Tan, W. H., Ketchersid, J., & Calfee, R. P. (2013) · The Journal Of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2012.12.032 · Cited by 467 · see citing works
Labbé, C., & Labbé, D. (2013) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Daily briefing: will ChatGPT kill the essay assignment?
Graham, F. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04437-2 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Equally good fixation of cemented and uncemented cups in total trapeziometacarpal joint prostheses
Hansen, T. B., & Stilling, M. (2013) · Acta Orthopaedica · doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.765625 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Injectable hyaluronan for the treatment of carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: open label pilot trial
Mandl, L. A., Hotchkiss, R. N., Adler, R. S., et al. (2009) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007990903084016 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Marks, M., Hensler, S., Wehrli, M., et al. (2017) · The Journal Of Hand Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2017.07.023 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Choudhury, A., & Chaudhry, Z. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/56764 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Application of ChatGPT for Orthopedic Surgeries and Patient Care
Morya, V. K., Lee, H.-W., Shahid, H., Magar, A. G., Lee, J.-H., Kim, J.-H., Jun, L., & Noh, K.-C. (2024) · Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery · doi:10.4055/cios23181 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seth, I., Sinkjær Kenney, P., Bulloch, G., Hunter-Smith, D. J., Bo Thomsen, J., & Rozen, W. M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Faculty of Science, Medicine, and Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
- The Alfred Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Seth, Ishith
- Rozen, Warren M.
- Venue
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open
- Published
- 2023-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e4999
- ISSN
- 2169-7574 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10219695
- OpenAlex
- W4378471319
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9
- FWCI
- 1.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Scopus (Elsevier) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, AI-generated text, academic writing, plastic surgery, medical publishing, reference generation
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
