The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers

Giglio, Auro Del; Costa, Mateus Uerlei Pereira da

doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20230560

Cited by 15 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, while none of these factors reached statistical significance, there was a trend toward a higher impact of ChatGPT for researchers who were less comfortable in English and those with less experience in abstract submission. This results aligns with Del Giglio et al who suggested that artificial intelligence could improve scientific writing of non-native English-speaking scientists (27). It may also be helpful for less experienced researchers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Will ChatGPT-4 improve the quality of medical abstracts?

Gravel,

Dion,

Fadaei Kermani

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: ChatGPT received recognition for medical writing. Our objective was to evaluate whether ChatGPT 4.0 could improve the quality of abstracts submitted to a medical conference by clinical researchers. Methods: This was an experimental study involving 24 international researchers who provided one original abstract intended for submission at the 2024 Pediatric Academic Society (PAS) conference. We created a prompt asking ChatGPT-4 to improve the quality of the abstract while adhering PAS submission guidelines. Researchers received the revised version and were tasked with creating a final abstract. The quality of each version (original, ChatGPT and final) was evaluated by the researchers themselves using a numeric scale (0-100). Additionally, three co-investigators assessed abstracts blinded to the version. The primary analysis focused on the mean difference in scores between the final and original abstracts. Results: Abstract quality varied between the three versions with mean scores of 82, 65 and 90 for the original, ChatGPT and final versions, respectively. Overall, the final version displayed significantly improved quality compared to the original (mean difference 8.0 points; 95% CI: 5.6-10.3). Independent ratings by the co-investigator confirmed statistical improvements (mean difference 1.10 points; 95% CI: 0.54-1.66). Researchers identified minor (n=10) and major (n=3) factual errors in ChatGPTs abstracts. Conclusion: While ChatGPT 4.0 does not produce abstracts of better quality then the one crafted by researchers, it serves as a valuable tool for researchers to enhance the quality of their own abstracts. The utilization of such tools is a potential strategy for researchers seeking to improve their abstracts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%