Purpose: ChatGPT has gained popularity as a web application since its release in 2022. While artificial intelligence (AI) systems’ potential in scientific writing is widely discussed, their reliability in reviewing literature and providing accurate references remains unexplored. This study examines the reliability of references generated by ChatGPT language models in the Head and Neck field. Methods: Twenty clinical questions were generated across different Head and Neck disciplines, to prompt ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to produce texts on the assigned topics. The generated references were categorized as “true,” “erroneous,” or “inexistent” based on congruence with existing records in scientific databases. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed version 3.5 in terms of reference reliability. However, both versions displayed a tendency to provide erroneous/non-existent references. Conclusions: It is crucial to address this challenge to maintain the reliability of scientific literature. Journals and institutions should establish strategies and good-practice principles in the evolving landscape of AI-assisted scientific writing.

Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT references in head and neck and ENT disciplines / Frosolini, A.; Franz, L.; Benedetti, S.; Vaira, L. A.; de Filippis, C.; Gennaro, P.; Marioni, G.; Gabriele, G.. - In: EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY. - ISSN 0937-4477. - 280:11(2023), pp. 5129-5133. [10.1007/s00405-023-08205-4]

Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT references in head and neck and ENT disciplines

Vaira L. A.;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: ChatGPT has gained popularity as a web application since its release in 2022. While artificial intelligence (AI) systems’ potential in scientific writing is widely discussed, their reliability in reviewing literature and providing accurate references remains unexplored. This study examines the reliability of references generated by ChatGPT language models in the Head and Neck field. Methods: Twenty clinical questions were generated across different Head and Neck disciplines, to prompt ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to produce texts on the assigned topics. The generated references were categorized as “true,” “erroneous,” or “inexistent” based on congruence with existing records in scientific databases. Results: ChatGPT 4.0 outperformed version 3.5 in terms of reference reliability. However, both versions displayed a tendency to provide erroneous/non-existent references. Conclusions: It is crucial to address this challenge to maintain the reliability of scientific literature. Journals and institutions should establish strategies and good-practice principles in the evolving landscape of AI-assisted scientific writing.
2023
Inglese
280
11
5129
5133
5
AI; Artificial intelligence; Chat-GPT; Head and neck surgery; Maxillofacial
No
Frosolini, A.; Franz, L.; Benedetti, S.; Vaira, L. A.; de Filippis, C.; Gennaro, P.; Marioni, G.; Gabriele, G.
Assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT references in head and neck and ENT disciplines / Frosolini, A.; Franz, L.; Benedetti, S.; Vaira, L. A.; de Filippis, C.; Gennaro, P.; Marioni, G.; Gabriele, G.. - In: EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY. - ISSN 0937-4477. - 280:11(2023), pp. 5129-5133. [10.1007/s00405-023-08205-4]
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
1 Contributo su Rivista::1.1 Articolo in rivista
262
8
none
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11388/324959
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 49
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact