The Use of Large Language Models and Their Association With Enhanced Impact in Biomedical Research and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The release of ChatGPT in 2022 has catalyzed the adoption of large language models (LLMs) across diverse writing domains, including academic writing. However, this technological shift has raised critical questions regarding the prevalence of LLM usage in academic writing and its potential influence on the quality and impact of research articles. Here, we address these questions by analyzing preprint articles from arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv between 2022 and 2024, employing a novel LLM usage detection tool. Our study reveals that LLMs have been widely adopted in biomedical and other types of academic writing since late 2022. Notably, we noticed that LLM usage is linked to an enhanced impact of research articles after examining their correlation, as measured by citation numbers. Furthermore, we observe that LLMs influence specific content types in academic writing, including hypothesis formulation, conclusion summarization, description of phenomena, and suggestions for future work. Collectively, our findings underscore the potential benefits of LLMs in scientific communication, suggesting that they may not only streamline the writing process but also enhance the dissemination and impact of research findings across disciplines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".