Ethics: disclose use of AI in scientific manuscripts

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence.

METHODS

In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated.

RESULTS

The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals.

KEY POINTS

The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired.

Potential Roles of Large Language Models in the Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have become widely applied in the field of medical research. In the process of conducting systematic reviews, similar tools can be used to expedite various steps, including defining clinical questions, performing the literature search, document screening, information extraction, and language refinement, thereby conserving resources and enhancing efficiency. However, when using LLMs, attention should be paid to transparent reporting, distinguishing between genuine and false content, and avoiding academic misconduct. In this viewpoint, we highlight the potential roles of LLMs in the creation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, elucidating their advantages, limitations, and future research directions, aiming to provide insights and guidance for authors planning systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Ethics for AI in Plastic Surgery: Guidelines and Review

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds the potential to revolutionize medicine, offering vast improvements for plastic surgery. While human physicians are limited to one lifetime of experience, AI is poised to soon surpass human capabilities, as it draws on limitless information and continuous learning abilities. Nevertheless, as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in this domain, it gives rise to critical ethical considerations that must be addressed by professionals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This work reviews the literature referring to the ethical challenges brought on by the ever-expanding use of AI in plastic surgery and offers guidelines for its application.

RESULTS

Ethical challenges include the disclosure of use of AI by caregivers, validation of decision-making, data privacy, informed consent and autonomy, potential biases in AI systems, the opaque nature of AI models, questions of liability, and the need for regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus for the ethical use of AI in plastic surgery. Guidelines, such as those presented in this work, are needed within each discipline of medicine to respond to important ethical considerations for the safe use of AI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Promise and Perils of Artificial Intelligence in Health Professions Education Practice and Scholarship

ABSTRACT

Artificial intelligence (AI) methods, especially machine learning and natural language processing, are increasingly affecting health professions education (HPE), including the medical school application and selection processes, assessment, and scholarship production. The rise of large language models over the past 18 months, such as ChatGPT, has raised questions about how best to incorporate these methods into HPE. The lack of training in AI among most HPE faculty and scholars poses an important challenge in facilitating such discussions. In this commentary, the authors provide a primer on the AI methods most often used in the practice and scholarship of HPE, discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities these tools afford, and underscore that these methods should be understood as part of the larger set of statistical tools available.Despite their ability to process huge amounts of data and their high performance completing some tasks, AI methods are only as good as the data on which they are trained. Of particular importance is that these models can perpetuate the biases that are present in those training datasets, and they can be applied in a biased manner by human users. A minimum set of expectations for the application of AI methods in HPE practice and scholarship is discussed in this commentary, including the interpretability of the models developed and the transparency needed into the use and characteristics of such methods.The rise of AI methods is affecting multiple aspects of HPE including raising questions about how best to incorporate these models into HPE practice and scholarship. In this commentary, we provide a primer on the AI methods most often used in HPE and discuss the most pressing challenges and opportunities these tools afford.

Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process

BACKGROUND

In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns.

CONTENT

This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment.

SUMMARY

AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment.

OUTLOOK

As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing.

A review of top cardiology and cardiovascular medicine journal guidelines regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in scientific writing

BACKGROUND

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have experienced rapid development over the last decade and are gaining increasing popularity as assistive models in academic writing. However, the ability of AI to generate reliable and accurate research articles is a topic of debate. Major scientific journals have issued policies regarding the contribution of AI tools in scientific writing.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the author and peer reviewer guidelines of the top 25 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine journals as per the 2023 SCImago rankings. Data were obtained though reviewing journal websites and directly emailing the editorial office. Descriptive data regarding journal characteristics were coded on SPSS. Subgroup analyses of the journal guidelines were conducted based on the publishing company policies.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that all scientific journals in our study permitted the documented use of AI in scientific writing with certain limitations as per ICMJE recommendations. We found that AI tools cannot be included in the authorship or be used for image generation, and that all authors are required to assume full responsibility of their submitted and published work. The use of generative AI tools in the peer review process is strictly prohibited.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines regarding the use of generative AI in scientific writing are standardized, detailed, and unanimously followed by all journals in our study according to the recommendations set forth by international forums. It is imperative to ensure that these policies are carefully followed and updated to maintain scientific integrity.

Human-Written vs AI-Generated Texts in Orthopedic Academic Literature: Comparative Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

As large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into different aspects of health care, questions about the implications for medical academic literature have begun to emerge. Key aspects such as authenticity in academic writing are at stake with artificial intelligence (AI) generating highly linguistically accurate and grammatically sound texts.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare human-written with AI-generated scientific literature in orthopedics and sports medicine.

METHODS

Five original abstracts were selected from the PubMed database. These abstracts were subsequently rewritten with the assistance of 2 LLMs with different degrees of proficiency. Subsequently, researchers with varying degrees of expertise and with different areas of specialization were asked to rank the abstracts according to linguistic and methodological parameters. Finally, researchers had to classify the articles as AI generated or human written.

RESULTS

Neither the researchers nor the AI-detection software could successfully identify the AI-generated texts. Furthermore, the criteria previously suggested in the literature did not correlate with whether the researchers deemed a text to be AI generated or whether they judged the article correctly based on these parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary finding of this study was that researchers were unable to distinguish between LLM-generated and human-written texts. However, due to the small sample size, it is not possible to generalize the results of this study. As is the case with any tool used in academic research, the potential to cause harm can be mitigated by relying on the transparency and integrity of the researchers. With scientific integrity at stake, further research with a similar study design should be conducted to determine the magnitude of this issue.

What is the rate of text generated by artificial intelligence over a year of publication in Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of 425 articles before versus after the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022

BACKGROUND

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is soaring, and the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has accelerated this trend. This "chatbot" can generate complete scientific articles, with risk of plagiarism by mining existing data or downright fraud by fabricating studies with no real data at all. There are tools that detect AI in publications, but to our knowledge they have not been systematically assessed for publication in scientific journals. We therefore conducted a retrospective study on articles published in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR): firstly, to screen for AI-generated content before and after the publicized launch of ChatGPT; secondly, to assess whether AI was more often used in some countries than others to generate content; thirdly, to determine whether plagiarism rate correlated with AI-generation, and lastly, to determine whether elements other than text generation, and notably the translation procedure, could raise suspicion of AI use.

HYPOTHESIS

The rate of AI use increased after the publicized launch of ChatGPT v3.5 in November 2022.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In all, 425 articles published between February 2022 and September 2023 (221 before and 204 after November 1, 2022) underwent ZeroGPT assessment of the level of AI generation in the final English-language version (abstract and body of the article). Two scores were obtained: probability of AI generation, in six grades from Human to AI; and percentage AI generation. Plagiarism was assessed on the Ithenticate application at submission. Articles in French were assessed in their English-language version as translated by a human translator, with comparison to automatic translation by Google Translate and DeepL.

RESULTS

AI-generated text was detected mainly in Abstracts, with a 10.1% rate of AI or considerable AI generation, compared to only 1.9% for the body of the article and 5.6% for the total body+abstract. Analysis for before and after November 2022 found an increase in AI generation in body+abstract, from 10.30±15.95% (range, 0-100%) to 15.64±19.8% (range, 0-99.93) (p < 0.04; NS for abstracts alone). AI scores differed between types of article: 14.9% for original articles and 9.8% for reviews (p<0.01). The highest rates of probable AI generation were in articles from Japan, China, South America and English-speaking countries (p<0.0001). Plagiarism rates did not increase between the two study periods, and were unrelated to AI rates. On the other hand, when articles were classified as "suspected" of AI generation (plagiarism rate ≥ 20%) or "non-suspected" (rate<20%), the "similarity" score was higher in suspect articles: 25.7±13.23% (range, 10-69%) versus 16.28±10% (range, 0-79%) (p < 0.001). In the body of the article, use of translation software was associated with higher AI rates than with a human translator: 3.5±5% for human translators, versus 18±10% and 21.9±11% respectively for Google Translate and DeepL (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The present study revealed an increasing rate of AI use in articles published in OTSR. AI grades differed according to type of article and country of origin. Use of translation software increased the AI grade. In the long run, use of ChatGPT incurs a risk of plagiarism and scientific misconduct, and needs to be detected and signaled by a digital tag on any robot-generated text.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case-control study.

The Emerging Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education, Research, and Practice

Recent breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence (GAI) and the emergence of transformer-based large language models such as Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) have the potential to transform healthcare education, research, and clinical practice. This article examines the current trends in using GAI models in medicine, outlining their strengths and limitations. It is imperative to develop further consensus-based guidelines to govern the appropriate use of GAI, not only in medical education but also in research, scholarship, and clinical practice.