ChatGPT in medical writing: enhancing healthcare communication through artificial intelligence and human expertise

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 97 - 104, 15.01.2024

İsmail Meşe , Beyza Kuzan , Taha Yusuf Kuzan

https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1367414

Öz

This study explores the capabilities and limitations of ChatGPT, an advanced language model, in medical writing. Leveraging the GPT-4 architecture, ChatGPT has shown potential in aiding various stages of medical article creation, including planning, drafting, revising, and even submission processes. It can summarize extensive literature, suggest research questions, and assist in multi-language research, making it a versatile tool for initial research and planning. During revisions, ChatGPT’s strengths lie in improving language, ensuring consistency, and enhancing readability. Despite its abilities, ChatGPT has several limitations. ChatGPT’s training data only updates with each new version release, which could result in outdated or incomplete research. It also lacks the critical thinking, domain expertise, and ethical considerations that human researchers bring to medical writing. While ChatGPT can be a useful tool for routine tasks and initial drafts, human expertise remains critical for generating high-quality, ethical, and insightful medical research articles. Therefore, a hybrid approach that combines the computational power of ChatGPT with the intellectual and ethical rigor of human experts is recommended for optimizing medical writing processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Artificial intelligence, language models, medical writing, research methodology

Etik Beyan

In the conduct and reporting of this research, the authors have fully adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Destekleyen Kurum

n/a

Proje Numarası

n/a

Teşekkür

n/a

Kaynakça

• Bohr A, Memarzadeh K. The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications. Artificial Intelligence Healthc. 2020;1:25-60. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00002-2
• Basu K, Sinha R, Ong A, Basu T. Artificial intelligence: how is it changing medical sciences and its future? Indian J Dermatol. 2020;65(5):365-370.
• OpenAI. ChatGPT Release Notes. 2021. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes. Accessed March 21, 2023.
• Mese I, Taslicay CA, Sivrioglu AK. Improving radiology workflow using ChatGPT and artificial intelligence. Clin Imaging. 2023;103:109993.
• Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare. 2023;11(6):887.
• Homolak J. Opportunities and risks of ChatGPT in medicine, science, and academic publishing: a modern Promethean dilemma. Croat Med J. 2023;64(1):1-3.
• Khan RA, Jawaid M, Khan AR, Sajjad M. ChatGPT - reshaping medical education and clinical management. Pak J Med Sci. 2023;39(2):605-607.
• Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. 2023;613(7944):423.
• Temsah O, Khan SA, Chaiah Y, et al. Overview of early ChatGPT’s presence in medical literature: insights from a hybrid literature review by ChatGPT and human experts. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37281.
• Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet Things Cyber-Physic Sys. 2023;3:121-154.
• Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. Lancet Digit Health. 2023;5(3):E105-E106.
• Kallestinova ED. How to write your first research paper. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84(3):181-190.
• Colthorpe K, Mehari Abraha H, Zimbardi K, et al. Assessing students’ ability to critically evaluate evidence in an inquiry-based undergraduate laboratory course. Adv Physiol Educ. 2017;41(1):154-162.
• Lerchenfeldt S, Mi M, Eng M. The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):321.
• Groves T. What makes a high quality clinical research paper? Oral Dis. 2010;16(4):313-315.
• Lee H. The rise of ChatGPT: exploring its potential in medical education. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;00:1-6. doi: 10.1002/ase.2270.
• Shen N, Bernier T, Sequeira L, et al. Understanding the patient privacy perspective on health information exchange: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2019;125:1-12.
• Garattini L, Padula A, Mannucci PM. Conflicts of interest in medicine: a never-ending story. Intern Emerg Med. 2020;15(3):357-359.
• Kadam RA. Informed consent process: a step further towards making it meaningful! Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8(3):107-112.
• Dobrow MJ, Miller FA, Frank C, Brown AD. Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment. Health Res Policy Sys. 2017;15(1):31.
• Sinha RK, Deb Roy A, Kumar N, Mondal H. Applicability of ChatGPT in assisting to solve higher order problems in pathology. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35237.
• Cherry MG, Fletcher I, O’Sullivan H, Dornan T. Emotional intelligence in medical education: a critical review. Med Educ. 2014;48(5):468-478.
• Marsh CA, Browne J, Taylor J, Davis D. A researcher’s journey: exploring a sensitive topic with vulnerable women. Women Birth. 2017;30(1):63-69.
• Walls P, Parahoo K, Fleming P, Mccaughan E. Issues and considerations when researching sensitive issues with men: examples from a study of men and sexual health. Nurse Res. 2010;18(1):26-34.
• Seghier M. Using ChatGPT and other AI‐assisted tools to improve manuscripts readability and language. Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 2023;33(3):773-775.
• Donmez I, Idil S, Gulen S. Conducting academic research with the AI interface ChatGPT: challenges and opportunities. J STEAM Educat. 2023;6(2):101-118.
• Kim SG. Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientific articles. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;45(1):13.
• Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023;27(1):75.
• Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178-182.
• Chen PH. Essential elements of natural language processing: what the radiologist should know. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(1):6-12.
• Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):75.
• Mese I, Altıntaş Taslicay C, Kuzan BN, Kuzan T, Sivrioglu AK. Educating the next generation of radiologists: a comparative report of ChatGPT and e-learning resources. Diagn Interv Radiol. 25 December 2023 [Epub Ahead of Print]. doi: 10.4274/dir.2023.232496