Is ChatGPT Ready to Write Scientific Case Reports Independently? A Comparative Evaluation Between Human and Artificial Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific publishing has gained increased attention, and one AI tool that has been the subject of much discussion is ChatGPT. It is a large language model (LLM) built on the OpenAI platform that aims to emulate human-like writing and continually improves through user interactions. In this paper, ChatGPT's performance was assessed in medical publishing by comparing it to a case report written by oral and maxillofacial radiologists. ChatGPT was tasked with writing a case report based on a drafted report written by the authors in five different prompts. The findings of this study highlight issues related to the accuracy, completeness, and readability of the generated text. These results have significant implications for the future use of AI in scientific publishing and suggest that in the current iteration of ChatGPT, scientific information must be revised by an expert.
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?
ChatGPT is trained to give an uninterrupted flow of conversation even at the cost of giving hallucinating results.
“Buholayka et al [33] reported that ChatGPT is trained to give uninterrupted flow of conversation even at the cost of giving hallucinating results.”
From Reference Hallucination Score for Medical Artificial Intelligence Chatbots: Development and Usability Study (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
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
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · see citing works
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Artificial hallucination is defined as “generated content that is nonsensical or unfaithful to the provided source content” [10].”
BackgroundSallam, M. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060887 · Cited by 3,126 · see citing works
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
Introduction to Machine Learning, Neural Networks, and Deep Learning.
Choi, R. Y., Coyner, A. S., Kalpathy–Cramer, J., Chiang, M. F., & Campbell, J. P. (2020) · PubMed Central · doi:10.1167/tvst.9.2.14 · Cited by 1,067 · see citing works
ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity?
Eke, D. O. (2023) · Journal of Responsible Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060 · Cited by 532 · see citing works
The great Transformer: Examining the role of large language models in the political economy of AI
Luitse, D. M. R., & Denkena, W. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211047734 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Manohar, N., & Prasad, S. S. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.34616 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
The Importance of Writing and Publishing Case Reports During Medical Training
Ortega‐Loubon, C., Culquichicón, C., & Correa, R. (2017) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.1964 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Le, D. P., & Hall, S. C. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.36655 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Aljamaan, F., Temsah, M.-H., Altamimi, I., Al-Eyadhy, A., Jamal, A., Alhasan, K., Mesallam, T. A., Farahat, M., & Malki, K. H. (2024) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/54345 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
“Buholayka et al [33] reported that ChatGPT is trained to give uninterrupted flow of conversation even at the cost of giving hallucinating results.”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use
Cheng, A., Calhoun, A., & Reedy, G. (2025) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-025-00350-6 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Lozić, E., & Štular, B. (2023) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi15100336 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Hwang, T., Aggarwal, N., Khan, P. Z., Roberts, T., Mahmood, A., Griffiths, M. M., Parsons, N., & Khan, S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297701 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Ahn, S. (2024) · Korean Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · doi:10.4196/kjpp.2024.28.5.393 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Kim, S.-J. (2024) · Science Editing · doi:10.6087/kcse.343 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer
Gencer, A. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67293-2 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Khalifa, A. A., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2024) · Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research · doi:10.1108/agjsr-09-2023-0423 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Huespe, I. A., Echeverri, J. E., Khalid, A., Bisso, I. C., Musso, C. G., Surani, S., Bansal, V., & Kashyap, R. (2023) · Critical Care Explorations · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000975 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Vicent, M., Katushabe, C., Gloria, M., & Rugasira, J. (2025) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00495-3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Claude AI and Literature Reviews: An Experiment in Utility and Ethical Use
Sparkman, M., & Witt, A. (2025) · Library trends · doi:10.1353/lib.2025.a961199 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Chen, A., Qilleri, A., Foster, T., Rao, A. S., Gopalakrishnan, S., Niezgoda, J., & Oropallo, A. (2024) · Advances in Skin & Wound Care · doi:10.1097/asw.0000000000000226 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study
Jongkind, R., Elings, E., Joukes, E., Broens, T., Leopold, H., Wiesman, F., & Meinema, J. G. (2025) · MedEdPublish · doi:10.12688/mep.20815.1 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Can AI Tools Reliably and Effectively Detect Plagiarism in Scientific Writing?
Murdock, M. G., & Tadinada, A. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.83924 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationPinto, D. S., Noronha, S. M., Saigal, G. M., & Quencer, R. M. (2024) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.60461 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Will ChatGPT-4 improve the quality of medical abstracts?
Gravel, J., Dion, C., Kermani, M. F., Mousseau, S., & Osmanlliu, E. (2024) · Paediatrics & Child Health · doi:10.1093/pch/pxae062 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Jadán-Guerrero, J. L., Acosta-Vargas, P., & Gracia, N. E. G.-D. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62110-9_7 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Dierickx, L., Lindén, C., & Opdahl, A. L. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47896-3_5 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Evaluating ChatGPT’s Ability to Address Frequently Asked Questions in Gender-Affirmation Surgery
Rothchild, E., Jung, G., & Ricci, J. A. (2025) · Journal of Homosexuality · doi:10.1080/00918369.2025.2466712 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Bakare, A. B., Lee, Y., Hong, J., Richter, C. E., & Kuriakose, J. P. (2026) · Health care science · doi:10.1002/hcs2.70048 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Evaluating Chatbot Assistance in Historical Document Analysis
Hazemali, D., Osojnik, J., Onič, T., Todorović, T., & Borovič, M. (2024) · Moderna arhivistika · doi:10.54356/ma/2024/biub3010 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Will ChatGPT replace human medical writers?
Enache, R. (2023) · Romanian Journal of Rhinology · doi:10.2478/rjr-2023-0015
Young Minds, Rare Finds, and the Path to Publish Case Reports
Pashine, A. A., Naqvi, W. M., & Arora, S. P. (2024) · European Journal of Therapeutics · doi:10.58600/eurjther2138
IMPACTO DA IA NA PRODUTIVIDADE CIENTÍFICA: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMATIZADA
Figueiredo, F. J. G., Marinho, D. F. P., Holanda, G. C., Pinto, N. B., de Lira, R. C., de Assis, E. V., & Nunes, M. A. D. S. (2025) · Revista Foco · doi:10.54751/revistafoco.v18n1-015 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Wissenschaftliches Schreiben und KI
Geyer, B., & Stampfl, R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48999-1_27
Hazemali, D., Gostenčnik, N., & Borovič, M. (2025) · Moderna arhivistika · doi:10.54356/ma/2025/eetz1766
Is your curriculum GenAI-proof? A method for GenAI impact assessment and a case study
Jongkind, R., Elings, E., Joukes, E., Broens, T., Leopold, H., Wiesman, F., & Meinema, J. G. (2026) · MedEdPublish · doi:10.12688/mep.20815.2
Future of Scientific Publishing: Scoping Review with ☸SAIMSARA
SAIMSARA (2026) · SAIMSARA Journal · doi:10.62487/saimsarada26548b
Applications of ChatGPT in Dentistry: A Review (Preprint)Preprint
Kabbarah, A. J., Alwafi, A. A., Rajeh, M. T., Sabbahi, D., Almutairi, S., & Meisha, D. E. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.105330
Tanvir, I., Halwani, M. A., Halwani, M. A., Hassan, A., Waseem, H., Elbasateeny, S. S., Bibi, F., Zaidi, S. K., & Naseer, M. I. (2026) · Khyber Medical University Journal · doi:10.35845/kmuj.2026.24286
- Authors
- Buholayka, M., Zouabi, R., & Tadinada, A.
- Affiliations
- UConn Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Buholayka, Maryam
- Venue
- Cureus
- Published
- 2023-05-23
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- e39386-e39386
- ISSN
- 2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10292135
- OpenAlex
- W4378085371
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, oral and maxillofacial radiology, human-AI comparison, scholarly publishing, readability
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
