Attitudes and Perceptions of Medical Researchers Towards the Use of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in the Scientific Process: A Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Survey
Ng, J. Y.; Maduranayagam, S. G.; Lokker, C.; Iorio, A.; Haynes, R. B.; Moher, D.
Show abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to computer systems or robots that can perform tasks associated with human intelligence, such as reasoning, problem-solving, and learning. While AI programs have not matched human versatility, they are increasingly used in various domains like self-driving cars, speech transcription, medical diagnosis, and smart assistants. AI has benefited fields like medicine, healthcare, and scientific research by improving productivity, reducing errors, and lowering costs. AI chatbots are conversational programs used for customer service, mental health support, and education. In scientific research, chatbots have the potential to automate tasks like literature searches, data analysis, and manuscript writing, improving efficiency and addressing the reproducibility crisis. However, there are challenges to overcome, including accuracy, reliability, ethical concerns, and limitations of current chatbot models. Scholarly publishing faces debates about authorship and guidelines have been established by journals and publishing organizations regarding the use of AI chatbots. To understand researchers attitudes towards AI chatbots, an international survey is proposed to explore their familiarity, perceived benefits, limitations, and factors influencing adoption. Findings can guide policy development and implementation of AI chatbots in scientific research.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 93%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 93%
- Protocol for Development of a Reporting Guideline for Causal and Counterfactual Prediction Models 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol 94%
- A conversational agent for providing personalized PrEP support: Protocol for chatbot implementation 92%
- Strategies and Tools for electronic health records and physician workflow alignment: A scoping review protocol 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.