ChatGPT-4 and Human Researchers Are Equal in Writing Scientific Introduction Sections: A Blinded, Randomized, Non-inferiority Controlled Study

Abstract

Background Natural language processing models are increasingly used in scientific research, and their ability to perform various tasks in the research process is rapidly advancing. This study aims to investigate whether Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) is equal to humans in writing introduction sections for scientific articles. Methods This randomized non-inferiority study was reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for non-inferiority trials and artificial intelligence (AI) guidelines. GPT-4 was instructed to synthesize 18 introduction sections based on the aim of previously published studies, and these sections were compared to the human-written introductions already published in a medical journal. Eight blinded assessors randomly evaluated the introduction sections using 1-10 Likert scales. Results There was no significant difference between GPT-4 and human introductions regarding publishability and content quality. GPT-4 had one point significantly better scores in readability, which was considered a non-relevant difference. The majority of assessors (59%) preferred GPT-4, while 33% preferred human-written introductions. Based on Lix and Flesch-Kincaid scores, GPT-4 introductions were 10 and two points higher, respectively, indicating that the sentences were longer and had longer words. Conclusion GPT-4 was found to be equal to humans in writing introductions regarding publishability, readability, and content quality. The majority of assessors preferred GPT-4 introductions and less than half could determine which were written by GPT-4 or humans. These findings suggest that GPT-4 can be a useful tool for writing introduction sections, and further studies should evaluate its ability to write other parts of scientific articles.

Ähnliche Arbeiten