Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2025

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
Published on: May 3, 2016
Can Artificial Intelligence Deceive Residency Committees? A Randomized Multicenter Analysis of Letters of
Samuel K Simister1, Eric G Huish, Eugene Y Tsai
1From the University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA (Simister, Le, Meehan, Leshikar, Saiz, and Lum), the San Joaquin General Hospital, French Camp, CA (Huish), the Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, CA (Tsai), and the Yale University, New Haven, CT (Halim and Tuason).
Introduction:
The introduction of generative artificial intelligence (AI) may have a profound effect on residency applications. In this study, we explore the abilities of AI-generated letters of recommendation (LORs) by evaluating the accuracy of orthopaedic surgery residency selection committee members to identify LORs written by human or AI authors.
Methods:
In a multicenter, single-blind trial, a total of 45 LORs (15 human, 15 ChatGPT, and 15 Google BARD) were curated. In a random fashion, seven faculty reviewers from four residency programs were asked to grade each of the 45 LORs based on the 11 characteristics outlined in the American Orthopaedic Associations standardized LOR, as well as a 1 to 10 scale on how they would rank the applicant, their desire of having the applicant in the program, and if they thought the letter was generated by a human or AI author. Analysis included descriptives, ordinal regression, and a receiver operator characteristic curve to compare accuracy based on the number of letters reviewed.
Results:
Faculty reviewers correctly identified 40% (42/105) of human-generated and 63% (132/210) of AI-generated letters ( P < 0.001), which did not increase over time (AUC 0.451, P = 0.102). When analyzed by perceived author, letters marked as human generated had significantly higher means for all variables ( P = 0.01). BARD did markedly better than human authors in accuracy (3.25 [1.79 to 5.92], P < 0.001), adaptability (1.29 [1.02 to 1.65], P = 0.034), and perceived commitment (1.56 [0.99 to 2.47], P < 0.055). Additional analysis controlling for reviewer background showed no differences in outcomes based on experience or familiarity with the AI programs.
Conclusion:
Faculty members were unsuccessful in determining the difference between human-generated and AI-generated LORs 50% of the time, which suggests that AI can generate LORs similarly to human authors. This highlights the importance for selection committees to reconsider the role and influence of LORs on residency applications.
More Related Videos
06:05Employing Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in a Resource Limited Environment to Establish Brain-Behavior Relationships
Published on: April 20, 2022
07:10Depletion of Mouse Cells from Human Tumor Xenografts Significantly Improves Downstream Analysis of Target Cells
Published on: July 29, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Ethics in Research
False Memories
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information...
The Representativeness Heuristic
Stereotype Threat and Self-fulfilling Prophecies
Ethical Dilemmas II
Stereotype Content Model