Scholarlink

Background <p>Since its 2022 release, ChatGPT has gained recognition for its potential to expedite time-consuming writing tasks like scientific writing. Well-written scientific abstracts are essential for clear and efficient communication of research findings. This study aims to explore ChatGPT-4’s capability to produce well-crafted abstracts.</p> Methods <p>Ten abstract-less plastic surgery articles from PubMed were uploaded to ChatGPT, each with a prompt to generate one abstract. Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) were calculated for all abstracts. Additionally, three physician evaluators blindly assessed the ten original and ten ChatGPT-generated abstracts using a 5-point Likert scale. Results were compared and analyzed using descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation (SD).</p> Results <p>The original abstracts averaged an FKGL of 14.1 (SD 2.9) and an FRES of 25.2 (SD 14.2), while ChatGPT-generated abstracts had scores of 15.6 (SD 2.4) and 15.4 (SD 13.1), respectively. Collectively, evaluators identified two-thirds of the ChatGPT abstracts, but preferred the ChatGPT abstracts 90% of the time. On average, the evaluators found the ChatGPT abstracts to be more “well written” (4.23 vs. 3.50, <i>p</i> value &lt; 0.001) and “clear and concise” (4.30 vs. 3.53, <i>p</i> value &lt; 0.001) compared to the original abstracts.</p> Conclusions <p>Despite a slightly higher reading level, evaluators generally preferred ChatGPT abstracts, which received higher ratings overall. These findings suggest ChatGPT holds promise in expediting the creation of high-quality scientific abstracts, potentially enhancing efficiency in research and scientific writing tasks. However, due to its exploratory nature, this study calls for additional research to validate these promising findings.</p> Level of Evidence IV <p>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 &#xa0;<a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Man Versus Machine: A Comparative Study of Human and ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Research

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月14日

查看全文
  • Sophia M. Pressman,
  • John P. Garcia,
  • Sahar Borna,
  • Cesar A. Gomez-Cabello,
  • Syed Ali Haider,
  • Clifton R. Haider,
  • Antonio Jorge Forte

摘要

Background

Since its 2022 release, ChatGPT has gained recognition for its potential to expedite time-consuming writing tasks like scientific writing. Well-written scientific abstracts are essential for clear and efficient communication of research findings. This study aims to explore ChatGPT-4’s capability to produce well-crafted abstracts.

Methods

Ten abstract-less plastic surgery articles from PubMed were uploaded to ChatGPT, each with a prompt to generate one abstract. Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) were calculated for all abstracts. Additionally, three physician evaluators blindly assessed the ten original and ten ChatGPT-generated abstracts using a 5-point Likert scale. Results were compared and analyzed using descriptive statistics with mean and standard deviation (SD).

Results

The original abstracts averaged an FKGL of 14.1 (SD 2.9) and an FRES of 25.2 (SD 14.2), while ChatGPT-generated abstracts had scores of 15.6 (SD 2.4) and 15.4 (SD 13.1), respectively. Collectively, evaluators identified two-thirds of the ChatGPT abstracts, but preferred the ChatGPT abstracts 90% of the time. On average, the evaluators found the ChatGPT abstracts to be more “well written” (4.23 vs. 3.50, p value < 0.001) and “clear and concise” (4.30 vs. 3.53, p value < 0.001) compared to the original abstracts.

Conclusions

Despite a slightly higher reading level, evaluators generally preferred ChatGPT abstracts, which received higher ratings overall. These findings suggest ChatGPT holds promise in expediting the creation of high-quality scientific abstracts, potentially enhancing efficiency in research and scientific writing tasks. However, due to its exploratory nature, this study calls for additional research to validate these promising findings.

Level of Evidence IV

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