Delving into PubMed records: some terms in medical writing have drastically changed after the arrival of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: It is estimated that large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT is already widely used in academic paper writing. This study aims to investigate whether the usage of specific terminologies has increased, focusing on words and phrases frequently reported as overused by ChatGPT. Methods: A list of 142 potentially AI-influenced terms was curated from online discussions and recent literature documenting LLM vocabulary patterns, while 84 common academic terms in the medical field were used as controls. PubMed records from 2000 to 2024 were analyzed to track the frequency of these terms. Usage trends were normalized using a modified Z-score transformation. Results: Among the potentially AI-influenced terms, 100 displayed a meaningful increase (modified Z-score ≥ 3.5) in usage in 2024. The linear mixed-effects model showed a significant effect of potentially AI-influenced terms on usage frequency compared to common academic phrases (p < 0.001); the usage of potentially AI-influenced terms showed a noticeable increase starting in 2020. Discussion: This study revealed that certain words, such as “delve,” “underscore,” “meticulous,” “boast,” and “commendable,” have been used more frequently in medical and biological fields since the introduction of ChatGPT. The usage of these terms had already been increasing prior to ChatGPT’s release, suggesting that ChatGPT accelerated the popularity of expressions already gaining traction. The identified terms can inform medical educators aiming to enhance awareness of language trends and promote best practices among trainees using LLMs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
the doctoral students began to find that they could identify a base level of what we might call 'GPT-Sprache' in student submissions (and researcher submissions at a journal in which they were employed) by its peculiar sentence structure and word choice (including the infamously non-nuanced use of 'delve').
“By this point, the doctoral students began to find that they could identify a base level of what we might call 'GPT-Sprache' in student submissions (and researcher submissions at a journal in which they were employed) by its peculiar sentence structure and word choice (including the infamously non-nuanced use of 'delve'; see Matsui, 2024).”
From “Scarlet Cloak and the Forest Adventure”: a preliminary study of the impact of AI on commonly used writing tools (2025) · cites this paper as Matsui, 2024
Cites
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843 · Cited by 717 · see citing works
A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays
Herbold, S., Hautli-Janisz, A., Heuer, U., Kikteva, Z., & Trautsch, A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45644-9 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Jeyaraman, M., Ramasubramanian, S., Balaji, S., Jeyaraman, N., Nallakumarasamy, A., & Sharma, S. (2023) · World Journal of Methodology · doi:10.5662/wjm.v13.i4.170 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Differentiate ChatGPT-generated and Human-written Medical Texts
Liao, W., Liu, Z., Dai, H., Xu, S., Wu, Z., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Zhu, D., Cai, H., Liu, T., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11567 · Cited by 119
AI tools can improve equity in science
Berdejo-Espinola, V., & Amano, T. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg9714 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary
Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E.-Á., & Lause, J. (2025) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt3813 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Bordalejo, B., Pafumi, D., Onuh, F., Khalid, A. K. M. I., Pearce, M. S., & O’Donnell, D. P. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00505-5 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“…to find that they could identify a base level of what we might call “GPT-Sprache” in student submissions (and researcher submissions at a journal in which they were employed) by its peculiar sentence structure and word choice (including the infamously non-nuanced use of “delve”; see Matsui, 2024).”
- Authors
- Matsui, K.
- Affiliations
- National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Matsui, Kentaro
- ORCID
- Matsui, Kentaro
- Venue
- medRxiv
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2024-05-16
- OpenAlex
- W4396952264
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, AI-generated text, medical writing, academic writing, medical education
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