PreprintCited by 120Authorship Attribution and ProfilingTopic ModelingMisinformation and Its Impacts

Differentiate ChatGPT-generated and Human-written Medical Texts

Open access
Liao, Wenxiong, Liu, Zhengliang, Dai, Haixing, Xu, Shaochen, Wu, Zihao, Zhang, Yiyang, Huang, Xiaoke, Zhu, Dajiang +3 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Background: Large language models such as ChatGPT are capable of generating grammatically perfect and human-like text content, and a large number of ChatGPT-generated texts have appeared on the Internet. However, medical texts such as clinical notes and diagnoses require rigorous validation, and erroneous medical content generated by ChatGPT could potentially lead to disinformation that poses significant harm to healthcare and the general public. Objective: This research is among the first studies on responsible and ethical AIGC (Artificial Intelligence Generated Content) in medicine. We focus on analyzing the differences between medical texts written by human experts and generated by ChatGPT, and designing machine learning workflows to effectively detect and differentiate medical texts generated by ChatGPT. Methods: We first construct a suite of datasets containing medical texts written by human experts and generated by ChatGPT. In the next step, we analyze the linguistic features of these two types of content and uncover differences in vocabulary, part-of-speech, dependency, sentiment, perplexity, etc. Finally, we design and implement machine learning methods to detect medical text generated by ChatGPT. Results: Medical texts written by humans are more concrete, more diverse, and typically contain more useful information, while medical texts generated by ChatGPT pay more attention to fluency and logic, and usually express general terminologies rather than effective information specific to the context of the problem. A BERT-based model can effectively detect medical texts generated by ChatGPT, and the F1 exceeds 95%.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.11567

Cites

28 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLM-generated papers exhibit fewer grammatical and other types of errors and demonstrate a broader variety of expression.

    “In contrast, LLM-generated papers exhibit fewer grammatical and other types of errors and demonstrate a broader variety of expression (Yan et al. 2023; Liao et al. 2023a).”

    From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Liao et al. 2023a

    The Vocabulary and Sentence Analysis section says human-written medical texts have more diverse content and expression than ChatGPT-generated texts—the opposite of the claimed broader variety. The Abstract describes ChatGPT text as grammatically polished, supporting that part of the claim, but the paper does not establish that it has fewer other types of errors. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Machine-generated text has a more complex syntactic structure and uses more normalization, whereas human essays tend to be more lexically complex.

    “Machine-generated text has a more complex syntactic structure and uses more normalization, whereas human essays tend to be more lexically complex [81,83].”

    From Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integrity (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Vocabulary and Sentence Analysis section (page not provided) reports a larger vocabulary in human-written medical texts and says ChatGPT tends to use common words, supporting the lexical-diversity contrast. The Dependency Parsing section describes ChatGPT text as more logical and fluent, but does not establish greater syntactic complexity. The study examined medical abstracts and radiology reports, not essays. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent research has elucidated distinct disparities between LLM-generated text and human-written text, underscoring a tangible and discernible gap between the two.

    “Recent research (Giorgi et al. 2023; Liao et al. 2023b) has elucidated distinct disparities between LLM-generated text and human-written text, underscoring a tangible and discernible gap between the two.”

    From A Survey on LLM-Generated Text Detection: Necessity, Methods, and Future Directions (2025) · cites this paper as Liao et al. 2023b

    The Principal Results report differences between ChatGPT-generated and human-written medical texts and say those differences make the texts distinguishable. The Limitations restrict the study to English medical abstracts and radiology reports generated by ChatGPT; it does not establish the same gap for LLM-generated text generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI models were able to generate more high-quality argumentative essays than German high school students in an online forum.

    “In an experiment, AI models were able to generate more high-quality argumentative essays than German high school students in an online forum [83].”

    From Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integrity (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Background says ChatGPT can write essays for college students and produce text of surprising quality. Searches for German high school students, argumentative essays, and an online forum found no passage reporting the claimed experiment or comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. Bert: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. 2019 Presented at: North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies; June 2-7, 2019; Minneapolis p. 4171-4186
  2. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, Uszkoreit J, Jones L, Gomez AN, et al. Attention is all you need. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2017;30:1-11
  3. Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan JD, Dhariwal P, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2020;33:1877-1901
  4. Ouyang L, Wu J, Jiang X, Almeida D, Wainwright CL, Mishkin P, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv. Preprint posted online on March 4, 2022. [FREE Full text]
  5. Christiano PF, Leike J, Brown T, Martic M, Legg S, Amodei D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2017;30:1-9
  6. Schulman J, Wolski F, Dhariwal P, Radford A, Klimov O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv. Preprint posted online on July 20, 2017. [FREE Full text]
  7. Guan Z, Wu Z, Liu Z, Wu D, Ren H, Li Q, et al. Cohortgpt: an enhanced gpt for participant recruitment in clinical study. arXiv. Preprint posted online on July 21, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  8. Dai H, Liu Z, Liao W, Huang X, Wu Z, Zhao L, et al. AugGPT: leveraging ChatGPT for text data augmentation. arXiv. Preprint posted online on February 25, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  9. Ma C, Wu Z, Wang J, Xu S, Wei Y, Liu Z, et al. ImpressionGPT: an iterative optimizing framework for radiology report summarization with ChatGPT. arXiv. Preprint posted online on April 17, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  10. Liu Z, Yu X, Zhang L, Wu Z, Cao C, Dai H, et al. Deid-GPT: zero-shot medical text de-identification by GPT-4. arXiv. Preprint posted online on March 20, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  11. Shi Y, Xu S, Liu Z, Liu T, Li X, Liu N. MedEdit: model editing for medical question answering with external knowledge bases. arXiv. Preprint posted online on September 27, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  12. Mitrović S, Andreoletti D, Ayoub O. ChatGPT or human? Detect and explain. Explaining decisions of machine learning model for detecting short ChatGPT-generated text. arXiv. Preprint posted online on January 30, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  13. Liu Y, Ott M, Goyal N, Du J, Joshi M, Chen D, et al. RoBERTa: a robustly pptimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv. Preprint posted online on July 26, 2019. [FREE Full text]
  14. Lan Z, Chen M, Goodman S, Gimpel K, Sharma P, Soricut R. ALBERT: A lite BERT for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv. Preprint posted online on Septemeber 26, 2019. [FREE Full text]
  15. Radford A, Wu J, Child R, Luan D, Amodei D, Sutskever I. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. Semantic Scholar. 2019. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ Language-Models-are-Unsupervised-Multitask-Learners-Radford-Wu/9405cc0d6169988371b2755e573cc28650d14dfe [accessed 2023-10-18]
  16. Raffel C, Shazeer N, Roberts A, Lee K, Narang S, Matena M, et al. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J Mach Learn Res. 2020;21(1):1-67
  17. Liao W, Liu Z, Dai H, Wu Z, Zhang Y, Huang X, et al. Mask-guided BERT for few shot text classification. arXiv. Preprint posted online on February 21, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  18. Cai H, Liao W, Liu Z, Huang X, Zhang Y, Ding S, et al. Coarse-to-fine knowledge graph domain adaptation based on distantly-supervised iterative training. arXiv. Preprint posted online on November 5, 2022. [FREE Full text]
  19. Liu Z, Li Y, Shu P, Zhong A, Yang L, Ju C, et al. Radiology-Llama2: best-in-class large language model for radiology. arXiv. Preprint posted online on August 29, 2023. [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-45673-2_46] · DOI
  20. Guo B, Zhang X, Wang Z, Jiang M, Nie J, Ding Y, et al. How close is chatgpt to human experts? Comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv. Preprint posted online on January 18, 2023. [FREE Full text]
  21. Bird S, Klein E, Loper E. Natural Language Processing with Python -Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Sebastopol. O'Reilly Media; 2009.
  22. Carlini N, Tramer F, Wallace E, Jagielski M, Herbert-Voss A, Lee K, et al. Extracting training data from large language models. In: Proceedings of the 30th USENIX Security Symposium. 2021 Presented at: 30th USENIX Security Symposium; August 11-13, 2021; Vancouver

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liao, W., Liu, Z., Dai, H., Xu, S., Wu, Z., Zhang, Y., Huang, X., Zhu, D., Cai, H., Liu, T., & Li, X.
Affiliations
  • South China University of Technology (CN)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Li, Xiang
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
9
Pages
e48904-e48904
ISSN
2369-3762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390347092
Cited by
119
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 15
FWCI
11.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (U21A20520, 62172112)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFE0112200)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, AI-generated text detection, medical texts, clinical notes, disinformation, linguistic features, perplexity, BERT, responsible AI
MeSH terms
Disinformation, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Health Facilities, Humans, Electric Power Supplies

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