Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Group Design02:01

Group Design

8.9K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
8.9K
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

10.6K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
10.6K
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons02:54

Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons

5.7K
Genome comparison is one of the excellent ways to interpret the evolutionary relationships between organisms. The basic principle of genome comparison is that if two species share a common feature, it is likely encoded by the DNA sequence conserved between both species. The advent of genome sequencing technologies in the late 20th century enabled scientists to understand the concept of conservation of domains between species and helped them to deduce evolutionary relationships across diverse...
5.7K
Humanistic Psychology01:24

Humanistic Psychology

1.1K
Humanistic psychology emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the deterministic and pessimistic nature of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. While behaviorism focused on observable behaviors influenced by the environment and psychoanalysis delved into unconscious motivations, both theories suggested that human actions lacked free will. In contrast, humanistic psychology offers a perspective that emphasizes the innate potential for goodness and growth within every individual.
This approach...
1.1K
Statistical Significance01:50

Statistical Significance

20.1K
Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups. A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus not meaningful). In psychology, group differences are considered meaningful, or significant, if the odds that these differences occurred by chance alone are 5 percent or less. Stated another way, if we repeated this...
20.1K
Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

22.9K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
22.9K
  1. Home
  3. Research Domains
  5. Information And Computing Sciences
  7. Artificial Intelligence
  9. Natural Language Processing
  11. Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted By Humans Versus Chatgpt: Comparative Study.
  1. Home
  3. Research Domains
  5. Information And Computing Sciences
  7. Artificial Intelligence
  9. Natural Language Processing
  11. Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted By Humans Versus Chatgpt: Comparative Study.

Related Experiment Video

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

31.2K

Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study.

Mehrnaz Mostafapour1, Jacqueline H Fortier1, Karen Pacheco1

  • 1Canadian Medical Protective Association, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

JMIR AI
|August 19, 2024

View abstract on PubMed

Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Artificial intelligence (AI) like ChatGPT-4 can quickly generate broad literature reviews, but human researchers provide more accurate and contextually relevant insights for complex topics.

Keywords:
AIAI vs. humanChat GPT performance evaluationOpenAIs

More Related Videos

Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness
03:14

Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness

Published on: December 6, 2024

527
Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia
04:34

Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia

Published on: February 17, 2023

1.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

31.2K
Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness
03:14

Augmenting Large Language Models via Vector Embeddings to Improve Domain-Specific Responsiveness

Published on: December 6, 2024

527
Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia
04:34

Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Shugan Jieyu Capsules for the Treatment of Insomnia

Published on: February 17, 2023

1.0K

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Medical Informatics
  • Artificial Intelligence in Research

Background:

  • The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-4, has spurred interest in their application for scholarly tasks, including literature reviews.
  • The comparative efficacy of AI-generated literature reviews versus traditional human-led approaches remains an area requiring further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the quality of literature reviews generated by ChatGPT-4 with those produced by human researchers.
  • To focus the comparison on factors influencing physician-patient relational dynamics within medicolegal contexts.

Main Methods:

  • Two literature reviews on physician-patient dynamics in medicolegal contexts were analyzed: one generated by GPT-4 using iterative prompts, and one conducted by human researchers via traditional database searches (Ovid MEDLINE) and thematic analysis.
algorithm
algorithms
artificial intelligence
chatGPT
large language models
literature review
literature reviews
literature search
predictive model
predictive models
  • Comparative analysis utilized qualitative measures: accuracy, response time, consistency, knowledge breadth and depth, contextual understanding, and transparency.

    • Main Results:

    • ChatGPT-4 rapidly generated an extensive list of relational factors, demonstrating broad knowledge but lacking depth and contextual understanding, sometimes including irrelevant or inaccurate information.
    • Human researchers produced a more nuanced and contextually relevant review.
    • While GPT-4 excelled in response time and breadth, human reviews were superior in accuracy, depth, and contextual relevance.

    Conclusions:

    • AI tools like GPT-4 can assist in preliminary literature reviews by offering rapid overviews, but require expert evaluation due to limitations in accuracy and context.
    • Human expertise remains essential for comprehensive literature reviews, with AI serving as a valuable assistant rather than a replacement.
    • This study highlights the complementary potential of AI's speed and human expertise's depth for enhancing academic research outputs in health services and medical fields.