Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT-4 (OpenAI), there is an increasing interest in their potential to assist in scholarly tasks, including conducting literature reviews. However, the efficacy of AI-generated reviews compared with traditional human-led approaches remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the quality of literature reviews conducted by the ChatGPT-4 model with those conducted by human researchers, focusing on the relational dynamics between physicians and patients. METHODS: We included 2 literature reviews in the study on the same topic, namely, exploring factors affecting relational dynamics between physicians and patients in medicolegal contexts. One review used GPT-4, last updated in September 2021, and the other was conducted by human researchers. The human review involved a comprehensive literature search using medical subject headings and keywords in Ovid MEDLINE, followed by a thematic analysis of the literature to synthesize information from selected articles. The AI-generated review used a new prompt engineering approach, using iterative and sequential prompts to generate results. Comparative analysis was based on qualitative measures such as accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency. RESULTS: GPT-4 produced an extensive list of relational factors rapidly. The AI model demonstrated an impressive breadth of knowledge but exhibited limitations in in-depth and contextual understanding, occasionally producing irrelevant or incorrect information. In comparison, human researchers provided a more nuanced and contextually relevant review. The comparative analysis assessed the reviews based on criteria including accuracy, response time, consistency, breadth and depth of knowledge, contextual understanding, and transparency. While GPT-4 showed advantages in response time and breadth of knowledge, human-led reviews excelled in accuracy, depth of knowledge, and contextual understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that GPT-4, with structured prompt engineering, can be a valuable tool for conducting preliminary literature reviews by providing a broad overview of topics quickly. However, its limitations necessitate careful expert evaluation and refinement, making it an assistant rather than a substitute for human expertise in comprehensive literature reviews. Moreover, this research highlights the potential and limitations of using AI tools like GPT-4 in academic research, particularly in the fields of health services and medical research. It underscores the necessity of combining AI's rapid information retrieval capabilities with human expertise for more accurate and contextually rich scholarly outputs.
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 | 0.272 | 0.660 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".