Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.

AIM: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles. METHODS: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles. RESULTS: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes. CONCLUSION: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.

Association of reviewer experience with discriminating human-written versus ChatGPT-written abstracts.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if reviewer experience impacts the ability to discriminate between human-written and ChatGPT-written abstracts. METHODS: Thirty reviewers (10 seniors, 10 juniors, and 10 residents) were asked to differentiate between 10 ChatGPT-written and 10 human-written (fabricated) abstracts. For the study, 10 gynecologic oncology abstracts were fabricated by the authors. For each human-written abstract we generated a ChatGPT matching abstract by using the same title and the fabricated results of each of the human generated abstracts. A web-based questionnaire was used to gather demographic data and to record the reviewers' evaluation of the 20 abstracts. Comparative statistics and multivariable regression were used to identify factors associated with a higher correct identification rate. RESULTS: The 30 reviewers discriminated 20 abstracts, giving a total of 600 abstract evaluations. The reviewers were able to correctly identify 300/600 (50%) of the abstracts: 139/300 (46.3%) of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts and 161/300 (53.7%) of the human-written abstracts (p=0.07). Human-written abstracts had a higher rate of correct identification (median (IQR) 56.7% (49.2-64.1%) vs 45.0% (43.2-48.3%), p=0.023). Senior reviewers had a higher correct identification rate (60%) than junior reviewers and residents (45% each; p=0.043 and p=0.002, respectively). In a linear regression model including the experience level of the reviewers, familiarity with artificial intelligence (AI) and the country in which the majority of medical training was achieved (English speaking vs non-English speaking), the experience of the reviewer (ß=10.2 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.7)) and familiarity with AI (ß=7.78 (95% CI 0.6 to 15.0)) were independently associated with the correct identification rate (p=0.019 and p=0.035, respectively). In a correlation analysis the number of publications by the reviewer was positively correlated with the correct identification rate (r28)=0.61, p<0.001. CONCLUSION: A total of 46.3% of abstracts written by ChatGPT were detected by reviewers. The correct identification rate increased with reviewer and publication experience.

Could coping with your inner critic be the key to unlocking your scholarly writing?

INTRODUCTION: Though various barriers to productive writing habits exist in academia, scholarship is a critical part of faculty expectations. One barrier that has not been well addressed in the literature is the presence and interference of a negative inner critic, an internal voice or dialogue that criticizes work, halts creativity, and paralyzes writing. COMMENTARY: The purpose of this commentary is to describe the limited evidence-base and anecdotal strategies shown to support increased writing productivity by acknowledging and navigating the inner critic. With strategies such as proper identification, acknowledgment, strong mentor-mentee relationships, personifying the inner critic, embracing a growth mindset, and considering the distinct phases of writing, faculty can cope with their critical inner voice and reclaim control of their scholarly writing productivity. IMPLICATIONS: With such a heavy emphasis on writing productivity for faculty, faculty are encouraged to more formally explore and implement professional development strategies to help navigate their inner critic and bolster writing productivity.

Rest is essential for effective therapies, and so it is for preparing a manuscript.

Numerous medical articles are commented upon. This suggests that their scientific quality is insufficient. This need not be the case, however: most comments regard the presentation of the data, the conclusions or lacking information in the discussion. Such flaws can commonly be attributed to either too much haste in writing the manuscript, or insufficient time between finishing the manuscript and submission; this last problem seems the most common cause, as it deprives the author from reading his own text critically and with an open mind. The solution for this problem is simple: after having finished a manuscript, it should be laid aside for at least a week, after which the author should read it with the eyes of a reader, not the eyes of an author. Critical, open-minded reading after rest helps increase the quality of the resulting manuscript, just like rest helps a patient during most therapies.

Linguistic gender congruity differentially correlates with film and novel ratings by critics and audiences.

The film and publishing industries are fraught with gender disparities, with men overpowering nearly every sector of these domains. For instance, men are not only paid more than women in the film industry, but they also outnumber women in positions such as director, screenwriter, and lead acting roles. Similarly, women often resort to assuming gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to increase their prospects in the publishing industry. This widespread gender inequality in the film and publishing industries raises the question of how writers' gender relates to gendered language and narrative receptions. Two archival studies examined whether gender-linked language relates to film (N = 521) and novel (N = 150) ratings, and whether those associations differ as a function of writer gender or the expertise of the rater (professional critics and lay audience members). Results demonstrated that female screenwriters and novelists used a more feminine style of writing, whereas male screenwriters and novelists used a more masculine style of writing. Lay audiences gave more positive ratings to films and novels by writers who used a more gender-congruent writing style, in contrast with professional critics, who gave more positive reviews to films by writers who used a more gender-incongruent writing style. Our findings substantiate past research regarding the differing tastes of lay audiences and professional critics in addition to lending insight into subtle social dynamics that may sustain gender biases in the film and publishing industries.

Writing an effective National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget: How to get the money for your science.

In the scheme of developing an application for funding from any federal or foundation source, it is reasonable to place significant attention on the science. However, it is also imperative to remember that your budget is what will provide the resources to make sure you can complete your proposed investigations and, as such, deserves appropriate consideration. In the competitive arena of extramural funding, funding agencies are incentivized to ensure that the funds committed to research will yield maximum impact. A well-thought-out budget demonstrates to the funding agency 2 key factors: (1) that you understand the needs of the project and (2) you have a realistic expectation of the project costs. When these 2 things are communicated to the funding agency, in addition to the significance of your science, it is more likely that you will receive the budget you request. Herein, we put forth the fundamentals for preparing your budget and the nuances that may help you not only be in compliance but also improve your chances of success. This article will discuss issues to consider when designing a budget for large research grants, using the NIH R&R Budget as a prototype.

Creating Logical Flow When Writing Scientific Articles.

Numerous guidelines on how to write a scientific article have been published. Many books and articles giving detailed instructions on how to develop a research question, perform a literature search, or design a study protocol are widely available. However, there are few guidelines on how to create logical flow when writing a scientific article. Logical flow is the key to achieving a smooth and orderly progression of ideas, sentences, paragraphs, and content towards a convincing conclusion. This article provides guidelines for creating logical flow when writing the text and main sections of a scientific article. The first step is creating a draft outline of the whole article. Once completed, the draft outline is developed into a single, coherent article that logically explains the study. Logical flow in the text is created by using precise and concise words, composing clear sentences, and connecting well-structured paragraphs. The use of transitions connects sentences and paragraphs, ensuring clarity and coherence when presenting academic arguments and conclusions. Logical flow in the main sections of a scientific article is achieved by presenting the whole story of the article sequentially in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion, focusing attention on the most important points in each section, and connecting all of these to the main purpose of the study.

Writing a strong scientific paper in medicine and the biomedical sciences: a checklist and recommendations for early career researchers.

Scientific writing is an important skill in both academia and clinical practice. The skills for writing a strong scientific paper are necessary for researchers (comprising academic staff and health-care professionals). The process of a scientific research will be completed by reporting the obtained results in the form of a strong scholarly publication. Therefore, an insufficiency in scientific writing skills may lead to consequential rejections. This feature results in undesirable impact for their academic careers, promotions and credits. Although there are different types of papers, the original article is normally the outcome of experimental/epidemiological research. On the one hand, scientific writing is part of the curricula for many medical programs. On the other hand, not every physician may have adequate knowledge on formulating research results for publication adequately. Hence, the present review aimed to introduce the details of creating a strong original article for publication (especially for novice or early career researchers).

Modifying phrases in surgical pathology reports: introduction of Standardized Scheme of Reporting Certainty in Pathology Reports (SSRC-Path).

Pathologists often incorporate modifying phrases in their diagnosis to imply varying levels of diagnostic certainty; however, what is implied by the pathologists is not equivalent with what is perceived by the referring physicians and patients. This discordance can have significant implications in management, safety, and cost. We intend to identify lack of consistency in interpretation of modifying phrases by comparing perceived level of certainty by pathologists and non-pathologists, and introduce a standard scheme for reporting uncertainty in pathology reports using the experience with imaging reporting and data systems. In this study, a list of 18 most commonly used modifying phrases in pathology reports was distributed among separate cohorts of pathologists (N = 17) and non-pathology clinicians (N = 225) as a questionnaire survey, and the participants were asked to assign a certainty level to each phrase. All the participants had practice privileges in Brown University-affiliated teaching hospitals. The survey was completed by 207 participants (17 pathologists, 190 non-pathologists). It reveals a significant discordance between the interpretations of the modifying phrases between the two cohorts, with significant variations in subgroups of non-pathology clinicians. Also there is disagreement between pathologists and other clinicians regarding the causes of miscommunication triggered by pathology reports. Pathologists and non-pathology clinicians should be mindful of the potential sources of misunderstanding of pathology reports and take necessary actions to prevent and clarify the uncertainties. Using a standard scheme for reporting uncertainty in pathology reports is recommended.