ACMJ
Anatolian Current Medical Journal

Anatolian Current Medical Journal (ACMJ) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

eISSN: 2718-0115
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Review
ChatGPT in medical writing: enhancing healthcare communication through artificial intelligence and human expertise
Abstract
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 ChatGPT’s training data only updates with each new version release, which could result in outdated or incomplete research.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.

Keywords : Artificial intelligence, language models, medical writing, research methodology

Download Article


1. Bohr A, Memarzadeh K. The rise of artificial intelligence inhealthcare applications. Artificial Intelligence Healthc. 2020;1:25-60. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818438-7.00002-2
2. Basu K, Sinha R, Ong A, Basu T. Artificial intelligence: how isit changing medical sciences and its future? Indian J Dermatol.2020;65(5):365-370.
3. OpenAI. ChatGPT Release Notes. 2021. https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes. Accessed March21, 2023.
4. Mese I, Taslicay CA, Sivrioglu AK. Improving radiologyworkflow using ChatGPT and artificial intelligence. Clin Imaging.2023;103:109993.
5. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, andpractice: systematic review on the promising perspectives andvalid concerns. Healthcare. 2023;11(6):887.
6. Homolak J. Opportunities and risks of ChatGPT in medicine,science, and academic publishing: a modern Prometheandilemma. Croat Med J. 2023;64(1):1-3.
7. Khan RA, Jawaid M, Khan AR, Sajjad M. ChatGPT - reshapingmedical education and clinical management. Pak J Med Sci.2023;39(2):605-607.
8. Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature.2023;613(7944):423.
9. Temsah O, Khan SA, Chaiah Y, et al. Overview of earlyChatGPT’s presence in medical literature: insights from a hybridliterature review by ChatGPT and human experts. Cureus.2023;15(4):e37281.
10. Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background,applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and futurescope. Internet Things Cyber-Physic Sys. 2023;3:121-154.
11. Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generatingscholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medicalpublishing. Lancet Digit Health. 2023;5(3):E105-E106.
12. Kallestinova ED. How to write your first research paper. Yale JBiol Med. 2011;84(3):181-190.
13. Colthorpe K, Mehari Abraha H, Zimbardi K, et al. Assessingstudents’ ability to critically evaluate evidence in an inquiry-based undergraduate laboratory course. Adv Physiol Educ.2017;41(1):154-162.
14. Lerchenfeldt S, Mi M, Eng M. The utilization of peer feedbackduring collaborative learning in undergraduate medicaleducation: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):321.
15. Groves T. What makes a high quality clinical research paper?Oral Dis. 2010;16(4):313-315.
16. Lee H. The rise of ChatGPT: exploring its potential in medicaleducation. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;00:1-6. doi: 10.1002/ase.2270.
17. Shen N, Bernier T, Sequeira L, et al. Understanding the patientprivacy perspective on health information exchange: a systematicreview. Int J Med Inform. 2019;125:1-12.
18. Garattini L, Padula A, Mannucci PM. Conflicts of interestin medicine: a never-ending story. Intern Emerg Med.2020;15(3):357-359.
19. Kadam RA. Informed consent process: a step further towardsmaking it meaningful! Perspect Clin Res. 2017;8(3):107-112.
20. Dobrow MJ, Miller FA, Frank C, Brown AD. Understandingrelevance of health research: considerations in the context ofresearch impact assessment. Health Res Policy Sys. 2017;15(1):31.
21. Sinha RK, Deb Roy A, Kumar N, Mondal H. Applicabilityof ChatGPT in assisting to solve higher order problems inpathology. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35237.
22. Cherry MG, Fletcher I, O’Sullivan H, Dornan T. Emotionalintelligence in medical education: a critical review. Med Educ.2014;48(5):468-478.
23. 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.
24. Walls P, Parahoo K, Fleming P, Mccaughan E. Issues andconsiderations when researching sensitive issues with men:examples from a study of men and sexual health. Nurse Res.2010;18(1):26-34.
25. Seghier M. Using ChatGPT and other AI-assisted tools toimprove manuscripts readability and language. Int J Imaging SystTechnol. 2023;33(3):773-775.
26. Donmez I, Idil S, Gulen S. Conducting academic research withthe AI interface ChatGPT: challenges and opportunities. JSTEAM Educat. 2023;6(2):101-118.
27. Kim SG. Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientificarticles. Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;45(1):13.
28. Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligencehelp for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023;27(1):75.
29. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science andjournals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178-182.
30. Chen PH. Essential elements of natural language processing:what the radiologist should know. Acad Radiol. 2020;27(1):6-12.
31. Gao CA, Howard FM, Markov NS, et al. Comparing scientificabstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectorsand blinded human reviewers. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):75.
32. Mese I, Altıntaş Taslicay C, Kuzan BN, Kuzan T, Sivrioglu AK.Educating the next generation of radiologists: a comparativereport of ChatGPT and e-learning resources. Diagn IntervRadiol. 25 December 2023 [Epub Ahead of Print]. doi: 10.4274/dir.2023.232496
Article available in :
Volume 6, Issue 1, 2024
Page : 97-104
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1367414
Article Information
Received : 27 Eyl 2023
Accepted : 02 Oca 2024
Published : 15 Oca 2024
Corresponding Author :

İsmail Meşe: Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey

[email protected]
Citation : Meşe İ, Kuzan BN, Kuzan T. ChatGPT in medical writing: enhancing healthcare communication through artificial intelligence and human expertise. Anatolian Curr Med J. 2024;6(1):97-104.

Read: 68
Cited: 0
Download : 130
_Footer