Differentiating ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Medical Texts: Quantitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are capable of generating grammatically perfect and human-like text content, and a large number of ChatGPT-generated texts have appeared on the internet. However, medical texts, such as clinical notes and diagnoses, require rigorous validation, and erroneous medical content generated by ChatGPT could potentially lead to disinformation that poses significant harm to health care and the general public. Objective This study is among the first on responsible artificial intelligence–generated content in medicine. We focus on analyzing the differences between medical texts written by human experts and those generated by ChatGPT and designing machine learning workflows to effectively detect and differentiate medical texts generated by ChatGPT. Methods We first constructed a suite of data sets containing medical texts written by human experts and generated by ChatGPT. We analyzed the linguistic features of these 2 types of content and uncovered differences in vocabulary, parts-of-speech, dependency, sentiment, perplexity, and other aspects. Finally, we designed and implemented machine learning methods to detect medical text generated by ChatGPT. The data and code used in this paper are published on GitHub. Results Medical texts written by humans were more concrete, more diverse, and typically contained more useful information, while medical texts generated by ChatGPT paid more attention to fluency and logic and usually expressed general terminologies rather than effective information specific to the context of the problem. A bidirectional encoder representations from transformers–based model effectively detected medical texts generated by ChatGPT, and the F1 score exceeded 95%. Conclusions Although text generated by ChatGPT is grammatically perfect and human-like, the linguistic characteristics of generated medical texts were different from those written by human experts. Medical text generated by ChatGPT could be effectively detected by the proposed machine learning algorithms. This study provides a pathway toward trustworthy and accountable use of large language models in medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".