PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted various sectors, with health care witnessing some of its most groundbreaking contributions. Contemporary models, such as ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing, have showcased capabilities beyond just generating text, aiding in complex tasks like literature searches and refining web-based queries.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores a compelling query: can AI author an academic paper independently? Our assessment focuses on four core dimensions: relevance (to ensure that AI\'s response directly addresses the prompt), accuracy (to ascertain that AI\'s information is both factually correct and current), clarity (to examine AI\'s ability to present coherent and logical ideas), and tone and style (to evaluate whether AI can align with the formality expected in academic writings). Additionally, we will consider the ethical implications and practicality of integrating AI into academic writing.
METHODS: To assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing in the context of academic paper assistance in general practice, we used a systematic approach. ChatGPT-4, an advanced AI language model by Open AI, excels in generating human-like text and adapting responses based on user interactions, though it has a knowledge cut-off in September 2021. Microsoft Bing\'s AI chatbot facilitates user navigation on the Bing search engine, offering tailored search.
RESULTS: In terms of relevance, ChatGPT-4 delved deeply into AI\'s health care role, citing academic sources and discussing diverse applications and concerns, while Microsoft Bing provided a concise, less detailed overview. In terms of accuracy, ChatGPT-4 correctly cited 72% (23/32) of its peer-reviewed articles but included some nonexistent references. Microsoft Bing\'s accuracy stood at 46% (6/13), supplemented by relevant non-peer-reviewed articles. In terms of clarity, both models conveyed clear, coherent text. ChatGPT-4 was particularly adept at detailing technical concepts, while Microsoft Bing was more general. In terms of tone, both models maintained an academic tone, but ChatGPT-4 exhibited superior depth and breadth in content delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing for academic assistance revealed strengths and limitations. ChatGPT-4 excels in depth and relevance but falters in citation accuracy. Microsoft Bing is concise but lacks robust detail. Though both models have potential, neither can independently handle comprehensive academic tasks. As AI evolves, combining ChatGPT-4\'s depth with Microsoft Bing\'s up-to-date referencing could optimize academic support. Researchers should critically assess AI outputs to maintain academic credibility.
OBJECTIVE: This study explores a compelling query: can AI author an academic paper independently? Our assessment focuses on four core dimensions: relevance (to ensure that AI\'s response directly addresses the prompt), accuracy (to ascertain that AI\'s information is both factually correct and current), clarity (to examine AI\'s ability to present coherent and logical ideas), and tone and style (to evaluate whether AI can align with the formality expected in academic writings). Additionally, we will consider the ethical implications and practicality of integrating AI into academic writing.
METHODS: To assess the capabilities of ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing in the context of academic paper assistance in general practice, we used a systematic approach. ChatGPT-4, an advanced AI language model by Open AI, excels in generating human-like text and adapting responses based on user interactions, though it has a knowledge cut-off in September 2021. Microsoft Bing\'s AI chatbot facilitates user navigation on the Bing search engine, offering tailored search.
RESULTS: In terms of relevance, ChatGPT-4 delved deeply into AI\'s health care role, citing academic sources and discussing diverse applications and concerns, while Microsoft Bing provided a concise, less detailed overview. In terms of accuracy, ChatGPT-4 correctly cited 72% (23/32) of its peer-reviewed articles but included some nonexistent references. Microsoft Bing\'s accuracy stood at 46% (6/13), supplemented by relevant non-peer-reviewed articles. In terms of clarity, both models conveyed clear, coherent text. ChatGPT-4 was particularly adept at detailing technical concepts, while Microsoft Bing was more general. In terms of tone, both models maintained an academic tone, but ChatGPT-4 exhibited superior depth and breadth in content delivery.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Bing for academic assistance revealed strengths and limitations. ChatGPT-4 excels in depth and relevance but falters in citation accuracy. Microsoft Bing is concise but lacks robust detail. Though both models have potential, neither can independently handle comprehensive academic tasks. As AI evolves, combining ChatGPT-4\'s depth with Microsoft Bing\'s up-to-date referencing could optimize academic support. Researchers should critically assess AI outputs to maintain academic credibility.
摘要：
背景：人工智能（AI）的发展对各个部门产生了重大影响，医疗保健见证了一些最具开创性的贡献。当代模特,例如ChatGPT-4和MicrosoftBing，展示了不仅仅是生成文本的能力，帮助复杂的任务，如文献搜索和完善基于Web的查询。
目的：本研究探讨了一个令人信服的问题：AI能否独立撰写学术论文？我们的评估关注四个核心维度：相关性（确保AI的响应直接针对提示），准确性(以确定人工智能的信息在事实上是正确的和当前的)，清晰度(检查人工智能呈现连贯和逻辑思想的能力)，以及语气和风格（以评估AI是否可以与学术著作中预期的形式保持一致）。此外,我们将考虑将AI整合到学术写作中的道德含义和实用性。
方法：为了评估ChatGPT-4和MicrosoftBing在一般实践中的学术论文援助的能力，我们采用了系统的方法。ChatGPT-4是OpenAI的高级AI语言模型，擅长生成类似人类的文本并根据用户交互调整响应，尽管它在2021年9月有一个知识截止。微软Bing的AI聊天机器人方便用户在Bing搜索引擎上进行导航，提供量身定制的搜索。
结果：就相关性而言，ChatGPT-4深入研究了AI的医疗保健角色，引用学术资料，讨论不同的应用和关注，虽然微软Bing提供了一个简洁的，不太详细的概述。在准确性方面,ChatGPT-4正确引用了72％（23/32）的同行评审文章，但包含了一些不存在的参考文献。微软Bing的准确率为46%(6/13)，辅以相关的非同行评审文章。在清晰度方面,两种模型都传达了清晰的信息，连贯的文本。ChatGPT-4特别擅长详细介绍技术概念，而微软Bing更笼统。在语气方面，两位模特都保持着学术的基调，但ChatGPT-4在内容交付方面表现出优越的深度和广度。
结论：比较ChatGPT-4和MicrosoftBing在学术帮助方面的优势和局限性。ChatGPT-4在深度和相关性方面表现出色，但在引文准确性方面却步履蹒跚。MicrosoftBing简明扼要，但缺乏强大的细节。虽然这两种模式都有潜力，两者都不能独立处理全面的学术任务。随着AI的发展，将ChatGPT-4的深度与MicrosoftBing的最新引用相结合，可以优化学术支持。研究人员应该批判性地评估人工智能的产出，以保持学术可信度。
目的：本研究探讨了一个令人信服的问题：AI能否独立撰写学术论文？我们的评估关注四个核心维度：相关性（确保AI的响应直接针对提示），准确性(以确定人工智能的信息在事实上是正确的和当前的)，清晰度(检查人工智能呈现连贯和逻辑思想的能力)，以及语气和风格（以评估AI是否可以与学术著作中预期的形式保持一致）。此外,我们将考虑将AI整合到学术写作中的道德含义和实用性。
方法：为了评估ChatGPT-4和MicrosoftBing在一般实践中的学术论文援助的能力，我们采用了系统的方法。ChatGPT-4是OpenAI的高级AI语言模型，擅长生成类似人类的文本并根据用户交互调整响应，尽管它在2021年9月有一个知识截止。微软Bing的AI聊天机器人方便用户在Bing搜索引擎上进行导航，提供量身定制的搜索。
结果：就相关性而言，ChatGPT-4深入研究了AI的医疗保健角色，引用学术资料，讨论不同的应用和关注，虽然微软Bing提供了一个简洁的，不太详细的概述。在准确性方面,ChatGPT-4正确引用了72％（23/32）的同行评审文章，但包含了一些不存在的参考文献。微软Bing的准确率为46%(6/13)，辅以相关的非同行评审文章。在清晰度方面,两种模型都传达了清晰的信息，连贯的文本。ChatGPT-4特别擅长详细介绍技术概念，而微软Bing更笼统。在语气方面，两位模特都保持着学术的基调，但ChatGPT-4在内容交付方面表现出优越的深度和广度。
结论：比较ChatGPT-4和MicrosoftBing在学术帮助方面的优势和局限性。ChatGPT-4在深度和相关性方面表现出色，但在引文准确性方面却步履蹒跚。MicrosoftBing简明扼要，但缺乏强大的细节。虽然这两种模式都有潜力，两者都不能独立处理全面的学术任务。随着AI的发展，将ChatGPT-4的深度与MicrosoftBing的最新引用相结合，可以优化学术支持。研究人员应该批判性地评估人工智能的产出，以保持学术可信度。
