Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), there is an increasing interest in their potential to assist in scholarly tasks, including conducting literature reviews. However, the efficacy of AI-generated reviews compared with traditional human-led approaches remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the quality of literature reviews conducted by the ChatGPT-4 model with those conducted by human researchers, focusing on the relational dynamics between physicians and patients. METHODS: We included 2 literature reviews in the study on the same topic, namely, exploring factors affecting relational dynamics between physicians and patients in medicolegal contexts. One review used GPT-4, last updated in September 2021, and the other was conducted by human researchers. The human review involved a comprehensive literature search using medical subject headings and keywords in Ovid MEDLINE, followed by a thematic analysis of the literature to synthesize information from selected articles. The AI-generated review used a new prompt engineering approach, using iterative and sequential prompts to generate results. Comparative analysis was based on qualitative measures such as accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency. RESULTS: GPT-4 produced an extensive list of relational factors rapidly. The AI model demonstrated an impressive breadth of knowledge but exhibited limitations in in-depth and contextual understanding, occasionally producing irrelevant or incorrect information. In comparison, human researchers provided a more nuanced and contextually relevant review. The comparative analysis assessed the reviews based on criteria including accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency. While GPT-4 showed advantages in response time and breadth of knowledge, human-led reviews excelled in accuracy, depth of knowledge, and contextual understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that GPT-4, with structured prompt engineering, can be a valuable tool for conducting preliminary literature reviews by providing a broad overview of topics quickly. However, its limitations necessitate careful expert evaluation and refinement, making it an assistant rather than a substitute for human expertise in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, this research highlights the potential and limitations of using AI tools like GPT-4 in academic research, particularly in the fields of health services and medical research. It underscores the necessity of combining AI's rapid information retrieval capabilities with human expertise for more accurate and contextually rich scholarly outputs.