背景:生成人工智能(GenAI)诸如ChatGPT之类的大语言模型在各个领域变得越来越流行。然而,ChatGPT对牙科研究写作的影响尚未量化。本研究旨在评估ChatGPT在牙科研究写作中的使用情况,并讨论潜在的优势和挑战。
方法:使用文献计量设计,我们在PubMed2018-2024年索引的299,695份牙科研究摘要的标题/摘要中对指示ChatGPT使用的特定信号词进行了关键词分析.使用每10,000篇牙科出版物的归一化比率进行统计比较,比较了2022年11月30日ChatGPT发布前后的词频变化。
结果:在ChatGPT发布之前,摘要中含有信号词的频率为47.1/10,000篇论文.释放后,这增加到每万篇论文224.2,每万篇论文增加177.2篇(p=0.014,95%CI53.5-300.7)。单词\'delve\'显示最显著的使用量增加(增加比率=17.0)。
结论:这项研究是首次系统地评估GenAI的使用,特别是ChatGPT,牙科研究。我们在牙科研究出版物中发现了ChatGPT的使用和增长的证据。这一趋势表明,在科学交流中广泛采用GenAI辅助写作,与其他科学领域一致。虽然GenAI可能会提高生产力和包容性,它引起了诸如偏见之类的担忧,不准确,和学术激励的扭曲。因此,我们的研究结果支持学术出版需要明确的人工智能指南和标准,以确保负责任的使用和保持科学完整性.
BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Large-language models such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular in various fields. However, the impact of ChatGPT on dental research writing has yet to be quantified. This study aimed to assess ChatGPT\'s usage in dental research writing and discuss potential advantages and challenges.
METHODS: Using a bibliometric design, we performed a keyword analysis of specific \'signaling words\' indicative of ChatGPT use in the titles/abstracts of 299,695 dental research abstracts indexed PubMed 2018-2024. Statistical comparisons using normalized ratios per 10,000 dental publications compared changes in word frequency before and after the ChatGPT release on November 30, 2022.
RESULTS: Before ChatGPT\'s release, the frequency of abstracts with signaling words was 47.1 per 10,000 papers. After the release, this increased to 224.2 per 10,000 papers, an increase of 177.2 per 10,000 papers (p = 0.014, 95 % CI 53.5-300.7). The word \'delve\' showed the most significant usage increase (increased ratio=17.0).
CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to systematically assess the use of GenAI, specifically ChatGPT, in dental research. We found evidence of the use and growth of ChatGPT in dental research publications. This trend indicates the widespread adoption of GenAI-assisted writing in scientific communication, consistent with other scientific fields. While GenAI can potentially increase productivity and inclusivity, it raises concerns such as bias, inaccuracy, and distortion of academic incentives. Therefore, our findings support the need for clear AI guidelines and standards for academic publishing to ensure responsible use and maintain scientific integrity.