Exploring the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Referencing Scientific Articles

Author:

Graf Emily M.1,McKinney Jordan A.1ORCID,Dye Alexander B.1,Lin Lifeng2,Sanchez-Ramos Luis1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida

2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the reliability of three artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots (ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic) in generating accurate references from existing obstetric literature. Study Design Between mid-March and late April 2023, ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Chatsonic were prompted to provide references for specific obstetrical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2020. RCTs were considered for inclusion if they were mentioned in a previous article that primarily evaluated RCTs published by the top medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals with the highest impact factors in 2020 as well as RCTs published in a new journal focused on publishing obstetric RCTs. The selection of the three AI models was based on their popularity, performance in natural language processing, and public availability. Data collection involved prompting the AI chatbots to provide references according to a standardized protocol. The primary evaluation metric was the accuracy of each AI model in correctly citing references, including authors, publication title, journal name, and digital object identifier (DOI). Statistical analysis was performed using a permutation test to compare the performance of the AI models. Results Among the 44 RCTs analyzed, Google Bard demonstrated the highest accuracy, correctly citing 13.6% of the requested RCTs, whereas ChatGPT and Chatsonic exhibited lower accuracy rates of 2.4 and 0%, respectively. Google Bard often substantially outperformed Chatsonic and ChatGPT in correctly citing the studied reference components. The majority of references from all AI models studied were noted to provide DOIs for unrelated studies or DOIs that do not exist. Conclusion To ensure the reliability of scientific information being disseminated, authors must exercise caution when utilizing AI for scientific writing and literature search. However, despite their limitations, collaborative partnerships between AI systems and researchers have the potential to drive synergistic advancements, leading to improved patient care and outcomes. Key Points

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Reference61 articles.

1. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles-a systematic review and meta-analysis;H Jergas;PeerJ,2015

2. Reference accuracy in articles accepted for publication in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation;J D Key;Arch Phys Med Rehabil,1977

3. Accuracy of reference citations in five entomology journals;C Kristof;Am Entomol (Lanham Md),1997

4. Accuracy of references in five leading medical journals;R Siebers;Lancet,2000

5. Accuracy of cited “facts” in medical research articles: a review of study methodology and recalculation of quotation error rate;S A Mogull;PLoS One,2017

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3