- \n
- Readers cannot readily distinguish between healthcare text written by a human or by AI.<\/li>\n
- As the use of generative AI in medical writing increases, clear guidance and regulations are needed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/AdobeStock_167300960.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nThe use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow apace, and recent research<\/a> suggests that the fields of medical writing and medical publishing are no exception. While these \u00a0tools can be a powerful means<\/a> of increasing efficiencies, concerns remain<\/a> about their use in a sphere that requires \u201caccurate and complete information\u201d. AI-generated content can contain ‘hallucinations’ and inaccurate or biased details, which can be difficult for even experts to identify. This highlights the importance, for professionals and patients alike, of being able to distinguish material created by AI from that developed by humans. Unfortunately, this task can be harder than you think.<\/p>\n
Even healthcare professionals struggle to identify AI-generated content <\/strong><\/p>\n
In a recent edition of Medical Writing<\/em><\/a> from the European Medical Writing Association<\/a>, Natalie Bourr\u00e9 explained how her research sheds light on this complex issue. Bourr\u00e9 asked survey<\/a> respondents to tease apart healthcare-related content written by humans from that created by AI. Bourr\u00e9 found that:<\/p>\n
- \n
- overall, respondents were correct only 54% of the time<\/li>\n
- surprisingly, healthcare professionals did not fare better than others in differentiating AI- versus human-created content<\/li>\n
- medical writers were slightly better at spotting AI-generated text than other respondents.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Other groups have reported similar results and found that AI can create \u201ccompelling disinformation\u201d<\/a>. These issues are even more concerning when considered alongside earlier research by Bourr\u00e9, which found that readers can be overconfident in their ability to spot AI-generated content.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s next? Shaping AI usage in medical writing<\/strong><\/p>\n
Bourr\u00e9 calls for clear guidance and regulations<\/a> on the use of AI in medical writing. These safeguards<\/a> would help the medical publishing community to harness the efficiencies and improved accessibility that AI may bring, while maintaining the accuracy and credibility of medical research.<\/p>\n
\n
[Clear guidance and regulations on the use of AI] would help the medical publishing community to harness the efficiencies and improved accessibility that AI may bring, while maintaining the accuracy and credibility of medical research.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/Summary_new-byline.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n