Scholarlink

Abstract <p>In response to Matsubara’s commentary on our study of ChatGPT-generated abstracts, we clarify that our work represents an early exploration of AI’s potential to support researchers in academic medicine. While AI has limitations, our findings suggest that tools like ChatGPT may assist with abstract writing. We emphasize the importance of responsible and transparent use.</p> No Level Assigned <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <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

Invited Response to “Writing an Abstract: Humans or ChatGPT?”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月5日

查看全文
  • Sophia M. Pressman,
  • Cesar A. Gomez-Cabello,
  • Antonio Jorge Forte

摘要

Abstract

In response to Matsubara’s commentary on our study of ChatGPT-generated abstracts, we clarify that our work represents an early exploration of AI’s potential to support researchers in academic medicine. While AI has limitations, our findings suggest that tools like ChatGPT may assist with abstract writing. We emphasize the importance of responsible and transparent use.

No Level Assigned

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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.