May Artificial Intelligence Influence Future Pediatric Research?—The Case of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
Background: In recent months, there has been growing interest in the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to revolutionize various aspects of medicine, including research, education, and clinical practice. ChatGPT represents a leading AI language model, with possible unpredictable effects on the quality of future medical research, including clinical decision-making, medical education, drug development, and better research outcomes. Aim and Methods: In this interview with ChatGPT, we explore the potential impact of AI on future pediatric research. Our discussion covers a range of topics, including the potential positive effects of AI, such as improved clinical decision-making, enhanced medical education, faster drug development, and better research outcomes. We also examine potential negative effects, such as bias and fairness concerns, safety and security issues, overreliance on technology, and ethical considerations. Conclusions: While AI continues to advance, it is crucial to remain vigilant about the possible risks and limitations of these technologies and to consider the implications of these technologies and their use in the medical field. The development of AI language models represents a significant advancement in the field of artificial intelligence and has the potential to revolutionize daily clinical practice in every branch of medicine, both surgical and clinical. Ethical and social implications must also be considered to ensure that these technologies are used in a responsible and beneficial manner.
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?
The integration of ChatGPT into medical practices and healthcare settings presents challenges and ethical considerations.
“The integration of ChatGPT into medical practices and healthcare settings presents challenges and ethical considerations.”
One challenge is that ChatGPT's responses are based on the data on which it was trained, which may result in biased or inaccurate information.
“One challenge is that the responses of ChatGPT are based on the data on which it was trained, which may result in biased or inaccurate information.”
Ethical concerns arise when content generated by AI is mistaken for the expertise of a human.
“Ethical concerns arise when content generated by AI is mistaken for the expertise of a human.”
ChatGPT can provide initial observations that highlight regions of interest and assist radiologists in their analyses.
“It has the ability to provide initial observations, which can highlight regions of interest and assist radiologists in their analyses [13,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].”
ChatGPT has the ability to analyse and generate descriptions for medical images, which can enhance the workflow of radiologists.
“The potential of ChatGPT lies in its ability to analyse and generate descriptions for medical images, which can enhance the workflow of radiologists.”
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
Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing
Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.35179 · Cited by 1,540 · see citing works
Legal and Ethical Consideration in Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Who Takes Responsibility?
Naik, N., Hameed, B. M. Z., Shetty, D. K., Swain, D., Shah, M., Paul, R., Aggarwal, K., Ibrahim, S., Patil, V., Smriti, K., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Surgery · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.862322 · Cited by 931 · see citing works
Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing?
Salvagno, M., Taccone, F. S., & Gerli, A. G. (2023) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2 · Cited by 827 · see citing works
Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
Else, H. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis
Macdonald, C., Adeloye, D., Sheikh, A., & Rudan, I. (2023) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.13.01003 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Savova, G. K., Danciu, I., Alamudun, F., Miller, T., Lin, C., Bitterman, D. S., Tourassi, G., & Warner, J. L. (2019) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-0579 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Systematic review of current natural language processing methods and applications in cardiology
Turchioe, M. R., Volodarskiy, A., Pathak, J., Wright, D., Tcheng, J. E., & Slotwiner, D. J. (2021) · Heart · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2021-319769 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence for clinical decision support in neurology
Pedersen, M., Verspoor, K. M., Jenkinson, M., Law, M., Abbott, D. F., & Jackson, G. D. (2020) · Brain Communications · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa096 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Super-forecasting the ‘technological singularity’ risks from artificial intelligence
Radanliev, P., Roure, D. D., Maple, C. R., et al. (2022) · Evolving Systems · doi:10.1007/s12530-022-09431-7 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Annapragada, A. V., Donaruma‐Kwoh, M., Annapragada, A., & Starosolski, Z. A. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247404 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Chen, X., Xie, H., Cheng, G., Poon, L. K. M., Leng, M., & Wang, F. L. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10062157 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Forecasts on future evolution of artificial intelligence and intelligent systems
Radanliev, P., Roure, D. D., Maple, C., & Santos, O. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3169580 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Identification of asthma control factor in clinical notes using a hybrid deep learning model
Kshatriya, B. S. A., Sagheb, E., Wi, C., et al. (2021) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01633-4 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712983 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Younis, H. A., Eisa, T. A. E., Nasser, M., Sahib, T. M., Noor, A. A., Alyasiri, O. M., Salisu, S., Hayder, I. M., & Younis, H. A. (2024) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics14010109 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Xu, X., Chen, Y., & Miao, J. (2024) · Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions · doi:10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.6 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications
Chen, P., Wu, L., & Wang, L. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app131810258 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
ChatGPT applications in Academic Research: A Review of Benefits, Concerns, and Recommendations
AlZaabi, A., ALAmri, A., Albalushi, H., Aljabri, R., & AalAbdulsalam, A. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.08.17.553688 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
GPT-4 in breast cancer combat: A dazzling leap forward or merely a whim?
Deng, L., Zhang, Y., Luo, S., & Xu, J. (2023) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000000668 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Corsello, A., & Santangelo, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Milan (IT)
- University of Pisa (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Corsello, Antonio
- Venue
- Children
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2023-04-21
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 757
- ISSN
- 2227-9067 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10136583
- OpenAlex
- W4366692100
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 29
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Children (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Milan
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, pediatric research, large language models, clinical decision-making, medical education, drug development, algorithmic bias, AI ethics, technology dependence, research quality
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
