BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced substantially in recent years, transforming many industries and improving the way people live and work. In scientific research, AI can enhance the quality and efficiency of data analysis and publication. However, AI has also opened up the possibility of generating high-quality fraudulent papers that are difficult to detect, raising important questions about the integrity of scientific research and the trustworthiness of published papers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the capabilities of current AI language models in generating high-quality fraudulent medical articles. We hypothesized that modern AI models can create highly convincing fraudulent papers that can easily deceive readers and even experienced researchers. METHODS: This proof-of-concept study used ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) powered by the GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3) language model to generate a fraudulent scientific article related to neurosurgery. GPT-3 is a large language model developed by OpenAI that uses deep learning algorithms to generate human-like text in response to prompts given by users. The model was trained on a massive corpus of text from the internet and is capable of generating high-quality text in a variety of languages and on various topics. The authors posed questions and prompts to the model and refined them iteratively as the model generated the responses. The goal was to create a completely fabricated article including the abstract, introduction, material and methods, discussion, references, charts, etc. Once the article was generated, it was reviewed for accuracy and coherence by experts in the fields of neurosurgery, psychiatry, and statistics and compared to existing similar articles. RESULTS: The study found that the AI language model can create a highly convincing fraudulent article that resembled a genuine scientific paper in terms of word usage, sentence structure, and overall composition. The AI-generated article included standard sections such as introduction, material and methods, results, and discussion, as well a data sheet. It consisted of 1992 words and 17 citations, and the whole process of article creation took approximately 1 hour without any special training of the human user. However, there were some concerns and specific mistakes identified in the generated article, specifically in the references. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the potential of current AI language models to generate completely fabricated scientific articles. Although the papers look sophisticated and seemingly flawless, expert readers may identify semantic inaccuracies and errors upon closer inspection. We highlight the need for increased vigilance and better detection methods to combat the potential misuse of AI in scientific research. At the same time, it is important to recognize the potential benefits of using AI language models in genuine scientific writing and research, such as manuscript preparation and language editing.

Department of Methodology Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Neurosurgery and Neurooncology 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Psychiatry Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Institute of Biophysics and Informatics 1st Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czech Republic

J Med Internet Res. 2023 May 31;25:e49323. doi: 10.2196/49323. PubMed

J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 31;25:e50591. doi: 10.2196/50591. PubMed

J Med Internet Res. 2023 Aug 31;25:e50844. doi: 10.2196/50844. PubMed

Zobrazit více v PubMed

DALL·E. OpenAI. [2023-05-25]. https://labs.openai.com/s/nrU1jXnMGwdOw0AwkCPtQIN4 .

Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Buadze A, Bhugra D, Smith A. Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: ethical challenges for medical publishing. Lancet Digit Health. 2023 Mar;5(3):e105–e106. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00019-5. S2589-7500(23)00019-5 PubMed DOI

Brown TB, Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, Kaplan J, Dhariwal P, Neelakantan A, Shyam P, Sastry G, Askell A, Agarwal S, Herbert-Voss A, Krueger G, Henighan T, Child R, Ramesh A, Ziegler D, Wu J, Winter C, Hesse C, Chen M, Sigler E, Litwin M, Gray S, Chess B, Clark J, Berner C, McCandlish S, Radford A, Sutskever I, Amodei D. Language models are few-shot learners. 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020); December 6-12, 2020; Vancouver, BC. 2020.

Dathathri S, Madotto A, Lan J, Hung J, Frank E, Molino P, Yosinski J, Liu R. Plug and play language models: a simple approach to controlled text generation. arXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.02164. Preprint posted online on December 4, 2019. DOI

Introducing ChatGPT. OpenAI. [2023-05-24]. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt .

AI detector. Content at Scale. [2023-05-24]. https://contentatscale.ai/ai-content-detector/

AI text classifier. OpenAI. [2023-05-24]. https://platform.openai.com/ai-text-classifier .

Wu Y, Mo J, Sui L, Zhang J, Hu W, Zhang C, Wang Y, Liu C, Zhao B, Wang X, Zhang K, Xie X. Deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy and safety. Front Neurosci. 2021 Apr 1;15:655412. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.655412. PubMed DOI PMC

Figee M, Riva-Posse P, Choi KS, Bederson L, Mayberg HS, Kopell BH. Deep brain stimulation for depression. Neurotherapeutics. 2022 Jul;19(4):1229–1245. doi: 10.1007/s13311-022-01270-3.10.1007/s13311-022-01270-3 PubMed DOI PMC

Gaynes BN, Lux L, Gartlehner G, Asher G, Forman-Hoffman V, Green J, Boland E, Weber RP, Randolph C, Bann C, Coker-Schwimmer E, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN. Defining treatment-resistant depression. Depress Anxiety. 2020 Feb;37(2):134–145. doi: 10.1002/da.22968. PubMed DOI

Nato CG, Tabacco L, Bilotta F. Fraud and retraction in perioperative medicine publications: what we learned and what can be implemented to prevent future recurrence. J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul;48(7):479–484. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107252.medethics-2021-107252 PubMed DOI

Chen TJ. ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing. J Chin Med Assoc. 2023 Apr 01;86(4):351–353. doi: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000900.02118582-990000000-00174 PubMed DOI

Kitamura FC. ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology. 2023 Apr;307(2):e230171. doi: 10.1148/radiol.230171. PubMed DOI

Kung TH, Cheatham M, Medenilla A, Sillos C, De Leon L, Elepaño Camille, Madriaga M, Aggabao R, Diaz-Candido G, Maningo J, Tseng V. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digit Health. 2023 Feb;2(2):e0000198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198. PDIG-D-22-00371 PubMed DOI PMC

Else H. Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature. 2023 Jan;613(7944):423. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7.10.1038/d41586-023-00056-7 PubMed DOI

Flanagin A, Bibbins-Domingo K, Berkwits M, Christiansen SL. Nonhuman "authors" and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA. 2023 Feb 28;329(8):637–639. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.1344.2801170 PubMed DOI

Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023 Feb;15(2):e35179. doi: 10.7759/cureus.35179. PubMed DOI PMC

AI Is Changing the Landscape of Academic Writing: What Can Be Done? Authors' Reply to: AI Increases the Pressure to Overhaul the Scientific Peer Review Process. Comment on "Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora's Box Has Been Opened"