Cited by 243Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic Writing and PublishingArtificial Intelligence Applications

Can ChatGPT draft a research article? An example of population-level vaccine effectiveness analysis

Open access
Macdonald, Calum, Adeloye, Davies, Sheikh, Aziz, Rudan, Igor·2023·Journal of Global Health

Abstract

We reflect on our experiences of using Generative Pre-trained Transformer ChatGPT, a chatbot launched by OpenAI in November 2022, to draft a research article. We aim to demonstrate how ChatGPT could help researchers to accelerate drafting their papers. We created a simulated data set of 100 000 health care workers with varying ages, Body Mass Index (BMI), and risk profiles. Simulation data allow analysts to test statistical analysis techniques, such as machine-learning based approaches, without compromising patient privacy. Infections were simulated with a randomized probability of hospitalisation. A subset of these fictitious people was vaccinated with a fictional vaccine that reduced this probability of hospitalisation after infection. We then used ChatGPT to help us decide how to handle the simulated data in order to determine vaccine effectiveness and draft a related research paper. AI-based language models in data analysis and scientific writing are an area of growing interest, and this exemplar analysis aims to contribute to the understanding of how ChatGPT can be used to facilitate these tasks.

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

Crossref · 10.7189/jogh.13.01003

Cites

10 of 10 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Macdonald, C., Adeloye, D., Sheikh, A., & Rudan, I.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Rudan, Igor
Venue
Journal of Global Health
Published
2023-02-17
Volume
13
Pages
01003-01003
ISSN
  • 2047-2978 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-2986
OpenAlex
W4321167341
Cited by
243
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, scientific writing, vaccine effectiveness, population-level analysis, simulated data, healthcare workers, hospitalization
MeSH terms
Vaccine Efficacy, Computer Simulation, Confidentiality, Health Personnel, Humans, Software

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