Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Artificial Intelligence
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2950-3752
  • E-ISSN: 2950-3760

Abstract

Background

The advent of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) model, has introduced new challenges in educational practices, particularly in the realm of scientific writing at higher educational institutions. The AI is trained on extensive datasets to generate scientific texts. Many professors and academicians express concerns about the inclusion of AI chatbots in project execution, interpretation, and writing within specialized subject curricula at the undergraduate and master’s levels.

Methods

To address these concerns, we employed the ChatGPT tool by posing a specific query “Gynecomastia and the risk of non-specific lung disease, along with associated risk factors for workers in the petrochemical industry”. We conducted a comparison between responses generated by ChatGPT and real-time output from master’s students, examining document-to-document variation on different dates.

Results and Discussion

The AI chatbot failed to identify potential risk factors, in contrast to the student response, which highlighted alteration in neutrophil levels, lung architecture, high IgE, elevated CO levels, . The two responses did not align in terms of context understanding, language nuances (words and phrases), and knowledge limitations (real-time access to information, creativity, and originality of the query). A plagiarism check using the iThenticate software reported similarity indices of 11% and 14%, respectively, in document-to-document analyses. The concerns raised by academicians are not unfounded, and the apprehension regarding students utilizing ChatGPT in the future revolves around ethical considerations, the potential for plagiarism, and the absence of laws governing the use of AI in medical or scientific writing.

Conclusion

While AI integration in the curriculum is feasible, it should be approached with a clear acknowledgement of its limitations and benefits. Emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and original work is crucial for students engaging with AI tools, addressing concerns related to ethics, plagiarism, and potential copyright infringement in medical or scientific writings.

© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cai/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
2024-01-26
2025-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cai/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AyanouzS. AbdelhakimB.A. BenhmedM. A smart chatbot architecture based NLP and machine learning for health care assistance.Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on networking, information systems & security202016
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Stokel-WalkerC. AI bot ChatGPT writes smart essays — should professors worry?Nature202210.1038/d41586‑022‑04397‑7
     [Google Scholar]
  3. GrahamF. Daily briefing: Will ChatGPT kill the essay assignment?Nature202210.1038/d41586‑022‑04437‑236517680
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BiswasS. ChatGPT and the future of medical writing.Radiology20233072e223312
     [Google Scholar]
  5. VentayenR.J.M. OpenA.I. ChatGPT generated results: Similarity index of artificial intelligence-based contents.SSRN202310.1007/978‑981‑99‑3608‑3_15
     [Google Scholar]
  6. ChienS-Y. HwangG-J. A research proposal for an AI chatbot as virtual patient agent to improve nursing students’ clinical inquiry skills.ICAIE2023202313
     [Google Scholar]
  7. ChongT. YuT. KeelingD.I. de RuyterK. AI-chatbots on the services frontline addressing the challenges and opportunities of agency.J. Retailing Consum. Serv.20216310273510.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102735
     [Google Scholar]
  8. HaleemA. JavaidM. SinghR.P. An era of ChatGPT as a significant futuristic support tool: A study on features, abilities, and challenges.TBench202224100089
     [Google Scholar]
  9. AkgunS. GreenhowC. Artificial intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings.AI and Ethics20212431440
     [Google Scholar]
  10. OkonkwoC.W. Ade-IbijolaA. Evaluating the ethical implications of using chatbot systems in higher education.digiTAL2021202168
     [Google Scholar]
  11. YangH. How I use ChatGPT responsibly in my teaching.Nature202310.1038/d41586‑023‑01026‑937045954
     [Google Scholar]
  12. AlghabbanD.M. Al-AbbasiF.A. Al-AbbasiA.F. AnwarF. Gynecomastia and risk of non-specific lung disease: Biochemical and radiological relevance.Pol. J. Environ. Stud.20233264963497010.15244/pjoes/169398
     [Google Scholar]
  13. KhalafallaM.M. BabalghithA.K.M. JafarM. AllehianyO.H. KararH. BakriM. SalihA-F. Blood lead level and biochemical changes among gasoline stations workers exposed to benzene in Makkah City, Saudi Arabia.Pol. J. Environ. Stud.202332214731478
     [Google Scholar]
  14. VaishyaR. MisraA. VaishA. ChatGPT: Is this version good for healthcare and research?Diabetes Metab. Syndr.202317410274410.1016/j.dsx.2023.10274436989584
     [Google Scholar]
  15. TripathiA. MisraK. DhanukaR. SinghJ.P. Artificial intelligence in accelerating drug discovery and development.Recent Pat. Biotechnol.202317192310.2174/187220831666622080215112935927896
     [Google Scholar]
  16. MoorM. BanerjeeO. AbadZ.S.H. KrumholzH.M. LeskovecJ. TopolE.J. RajpurkarP. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence.Nature2023616795625926510.1038/s41586‑023‑05881‑437045921
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DevP. HaqueS. NoorA. SrabonA.A. WasikM.M. MimS. SharifeS.B. RahmanF. SyaraS.R. IqbalS. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Engineering and Technology (IICAIET)202216
     [Google Scholar]
  18. GaoC.A. HowardF.M. MarkovN.S. DyerE.C. RameshS. LuoY. PearsonA.T. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers.bioRxiv20222022.201210.1101/2022.12.23.521610
     [Google Scholar]
  19. DergaaI. ChamariK. ZmijewskiP. SaadB.H. From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: Examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing.Biol. Sport202340261562210.5114/biolsport.2023.12562337077800
     [Google Scholar]
  20. KooliC. Chatbots in education and research: A critical examination of ethical implications and solutions.Sustainability2023157561410.3390/su15075614
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MattarM.G. LengyelM. Planning in the brain.Neuron2022110691493410.1016/j.neuron.2021.12.01835041804
     [Google Scholar]
  22. SreeramanS. KannanM.P. Singh KushwahR.B. SundaramV. VeluchamyA. ThirunavukarasouA. SaravananK.M. Drug design and disease diagnosis: The potential of deep learning models in biology.Curr. Bioinform.202318320822010.2174/1574893618666230227105703
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cai/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
Loading
Scientific Writing – ChatGPT Versus Real-time Output: Addressing Academician’s Concern
Curr Arti Intell 2, e260124226404 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
/content/journals/cai/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
/content/journals/cai/10.2174/0129503752269069231213045450
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

file format download Download

  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): AI chatbot; artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; gynecomastia; neutrophil levels; plagiarism

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test