The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The transformative impact of large language models on medical writing and publishing: current applications, challenges and future directions
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming medical writing and publishing. This review article focuses on experimental evidence to provide a comprehensive overview of the current applications, challenges, and future implications of LLMs in various stages of academic research and publishing process. Global surveys reveal a high prevalence of LLM usage in scientific writing, with both potential benefits and challenges associated with its adoption. LLMs have been successfully applied in literature search, research design, writing assistance, quality assessment, citation generation, and data analysis. LLMs have also been used in peer review and publication processes, including manuscript screening, generating review comments, and identifying potential biases. To ensure the integrity and quality of scholarly work in the era of LLM-assisted research, responsible artificial intelligence (AI) use is crucial. Researchers should prioritize verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content, maintain transparency in the use of LLMs, and develop collaborative human-AI workflows. Reviewers should focus on higher-order reviewing skills and be aware of the potential use of LLMs in manuscripts. Editorial offices should develop clear policies and guidelines on AI use and foster open dialogue within the academic community. Future directions include addressing the limitations and biases of current LLMs, exploring innovative applications, and continuously updating policies and practices in response to technological advancements. Collaborative efforts among stakeholders are necessary to harness the transformative potential of LLMs while maintaining the integrity of medical writing and publishing.
Overview
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
Figures
Verification
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Prior studies have mostly discussed potential applications and ethical implications of LLMs for scientific writing in medicine overall and – when performance was measured – analyzed often only one (typically proprietary) LLM.12–17”
From Open-source versus proprietary large language models for academic writing in medicine: A controlled evaluation of DeepSeek-R1 and ChatGPT-o1 in neuroradiology (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
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.
Citations
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079
Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh2586 · Cited by 2,150 · cited 1×
“A quantitative study found that incorporating ChatGPT into the workflow for professional writing tasks reduced the average time taken by 40% and increased output quality by 18% [15].”
MethodChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437
Autonomous chemical research with large language models
Boiko, D. A., MacKnight, R., Kline, B., & Gomes, G. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0 · Cited by 1,050
Song, C., & Song, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1260843 · Cited by 717
GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779 · Cited by 673 · cited 1×
“The difficulty in detecting AI-generated content and the high risk of false-positives, especially for non-native English writing, further compound the issue [20].”
BackgroundMathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544 · cited 1×
“In the field of mathematics, an evolutionary procedure called FunSearch has been developed, which pairs a pretrained LLM with a systematic evaluator to surpass best-known results in complex problems [46].”
MethodHosseini, M., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5 · Cited by 328 · cited 1×
“…the overall evidence suggests that LLMs hold great promise in revolutionizing the peer review process by generating valuable insights and reducing the workload of human reviewers, leading to a more efficient and comprehensive evaluation of manuscripts in the era of review shortage (Table 2) [56].”
BackgroundGanjavi, C., Eppler, M. B., Pekcan, A., Biedermann, B., Abreu, A., Collins, G. S., Gill, I. S., & Cacciamani, G. E. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077192 · Cited by 266 · cited 1×
“These policies should address key components such as AI authorship, disclosure of AI use, and human author responsibility [64].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- 10.1038/s41586-023-06887-8 · DOI
- 10.1515/cclm-2023-1136 · DOI
- 10.12688/f1000research.142411.2 · DOI
- 10.1101/2024.03.08.24303960 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tics.2023.12.002 · DOI
- 10.1080/08989621.2023.2273377 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103720 · DOI
- 10.1055/a-2224-9230 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0217931 · DOI
- 10.2196/46924 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2106/JBJS.23.00473 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ejo/cjae011 · DOI
- 10.7759/cureus.37432 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100584 · DOI
- 10.1111/1742-6723.14233 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/glycob/cwad064 · DOI
- 10.1002/rcs.2621 · DOI
- 10.7759/cureus.49019 · DOI
- 10.7759/cureus.37589 · DOI
- 10.1093/humrep/dead207 · DOI
- Deveci CD, Baker JJ, Sikander B, Rosenberg J. A comparison of cover letters written by ChatGPT-4 or humans. Dan Med J. 2023;70:A06230412.
- 10.5334/pme.1246 · DOI
- 10.1080/15265161.2023.2233356 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.103980 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/jpm13101457 · DOI
- 10.1007/s00405-023-08205-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011511 · DOI
- 10.1007/s41669-024-00477-8 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10439-023-03324-9 · DOI
- 10.12793/tcp.2024.32.e8 · DOI
- Manning BS, Zhu K, Horton JJ. Automated social science: language models as scientist and subjects. arXiv:2404.11794 [Preprint]; 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 3]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.11794. · DOI
- 10.1002/ohn.526 · DOI
- 10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7759/cureus.43023 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.amjoto.2023.104145 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.07.009 · DOI
- 10.1145/3597307 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7759/cureus.42150 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41746-024-01185-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2196/49323 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anthuvan, T., Nagendra, L., Lakhani, O., Prabhuram, S., Rizvi, A. H., Maheshwari, K., & Kalra, S. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5394918 · Cited by 2
Large Language Models as Peer Reviewers: Prompt Sensitivity and Model-Dependent Reproducibility
Erturk, S. M., & Durmaz, M. (2026) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2026.04.046 · Cited by 2
Lupon, E., Bérard, Q., Migaud, H., Clavert, P., & Micicoi, G. (2026) · Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research · doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2026.104801
Eminovic, S., Levita, B., Schmidt, R., Lindholz, M., Desser, D., Penzkofer, T., Wattjes, M. P., & Nawabi, J. (2026) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076261464745
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahn, S.
- Affiliations
- Inje University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Ahn, Sangzin
- ORCID
- Ahn, Sangzin
- Venue
- The Korean Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology
- Published
- 2024-09-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 393-401
- ISSN
- 1226-4512 (ISSN-L)
- 2093-3827
- PMC
- PMC11362003
- OpenAlex
- W4402025438
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (2018R1A5A2021242)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- large language models, medical writing, scholarly publishing, AI-assisted peer review, manuscript screening, research design, literature searching, citation generation, AI-generated content quality, responsible AI use, human-AI collaboration, research integrity
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
