This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Applications of AI (289) Generative Language Models Including ChatGPT (713)

Published on in Vol 3 (2024)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/56537, first published .
Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study

Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study

Evaluating Literature Reviews Conducted by Humans Versus ChatGPT: Comparative Study

Authors of this article:

Mehrnaz Mostafapour1 Author Orcid Image ;   Jacqueline H Fortier1 Author Orcid Image ;   Karen Pacheco1 Author Orcid Image ;   Heather Murray1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Gary Garber1, 3, 4 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (22) Tweetations (8) Metrics

Journals

  1. Matalon J, Spurzem A, Ahsan S, White E, Kothari R, Varma M. Reader’s digest version of scientific writing: comparative evaluation of summarization capacity between large language models and medical students in analyzing scientific writing in sleep medicine. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2024;7 View
  2. Santos Solórzano R, Bonilla Cerquedo D. Asistentes de IAGen en la investigación académica: revolucionando la recuperación y análisis de literatura científica. Biblioteca Universitaria 2025;27(2):109 View
  3. Ben Saad H, Dergaa I, Ghouili H, Ceylan H, Chamari K, Dhahbi W. The assisted Technology dilemma: a reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research. AI & SOCIETY 2025;40(7):5649 View
  4. Joachim M, Dodson T, Laviv A. How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2025;83(8):1040 View
  5. Katz G, Zloto O, Hostovsky A, Huna-Baron R, Ben-Bassat Mizrachi I, Burgansky Z, Skaat A, Vishnevskia-Dai V, Fabian I, Sagiv O, Priel A, Glicksberg B, Klang E. Chat GPT vs an experienced ophthalmologist: evaluating chatbot writing performance in ophthalmology. Eye 2025;39(10):1948 View
  6. Madanchian M, Taherdoost H. The impact of artificial intelligence on research efficiency. Results in Engineering 2025;26:104743 View
  7. Thurzo A, Varga I. Revisiting the Role of Review Articles in the Age of AI-Agents: Integrating AI-Reasoning and AI-Synthesis Reshaping the Future of Scientific Publishing. Bratislava Medical Journal 2025;126(4):381 View
  8. Gobin M, Gosnat M, Toure S, Faik L, Belafa J, Villedieu de Torcy A, Armstrong F. From data extraction to analysis: a comparative study of ELISE capabilities in scientific literature. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2025;8 View
  9. Al-Sammarraie R, Al Mubasher H, Awad M, Naalbandian S, Darwiche N, Zurayk R, Romani M, Talhouk S. An artificial intelligence-aided scoping review of medicinal plant research in the Fertile Crescent. Frontiers in Pharmacology 2025;16 View
  10. Cussenot O. Reply to Hinpetch Daungsupawong and Viroj Wiwanitkit’s Letter to the Editor re: Olivier Cussenot, Yoann Taille, Jean-Jacques Portal, et al. Eliciting the Impact of Metformin and Statins on Prostate Cancer Outcomes from a Real-life National Database Analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 025;8:871–874. European Urology Oncology 2025;8(5):1433 View
  11. Adel A, Alani N. Can generative AI reliably synthesise literature? exploring hallucination issues in ChatGPT. AI & SOCIETY 2025;40(8):6799 View
  12. Champagne-Langabeer T, Cohen A, Shrestha K, Zhu J, Lopez A, Campbell A, Bakos-Block C. Exploring boundaries with food, substances, and people in substance use recovery: A qualitative analysis. Acta Psychologica 2025;259:105322 View
  13. Kim S. Research trends and comparisons of major generative artificial intelligence platforms for systematic literature reviews. Science Editing 2025;12(2):200 View
  14. Mahmoudi H, Chang D, Lee H, Ghaffarzadegan N, Jalali M. Critical Assessment of Large Language Models’ (ChatGPT) Performance in Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews: Exploratory Study. JMIR AI 2025;4:e68097 View
  15. Anesbury Z, Stocchi L. Advancing Systematic Literature Reviews With Artificial Intelligence: A TCCM‐Based Synthesis of Over 50 Years of Double Jeopardy Research. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2025;49(6) View
  16. Gosak L, Štiglic G, Tam W, Vrbnjak D. Human-led and artificial intelligence-automated critical appraisal of systematic reviews: Comparative evaluation. Nurse Education in Practice 2025;89:104614 View
  17. Tasker R. Writing for Pediatric Critical Care Medicine: What is Happening to Systematic Reviews?. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 2025;26(11):e1403 View
  18. Hafezikhah A. Natural selection of minds: how AI elevates idea-centric research in academia. AI and Ethics 2026;6(1) View
  19. Srikandabala K, Prabagar K, Jayatilleke S, Zhang P, Ellerbrock R, Rinas S, de Silva D, Alahakoon D. Optimization and Management of Data Center Networks: A Scoping Review on Key Themes, Challenges, and Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches. IEEE Access 2025;13:134699 View

Conference Proceedings

  1. Silva N, Wickramaarachchi D. 2025 5th International Conference on Advanced Research in Computing (ICARC). Enhancing Systematic Literature Reviews: Evaluating the Performance of LLM-Based Tools Across Key Systematic Literature Review Stages View
  2. Lin D, Wei Z, Sun R, Liu Q. 2025 7th International Conference on Computer Science and Technologies in Education (CSTE). Large Language Model-supported Intelligent Evaluation of Open-ended Tasks: Case Studies and Reflections Based on SOU View
  3. Odutusin M, Malik H. 2025 IEEE International Conference on Industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence, and Communications Technology (IAICT). A Novel Narrative Analysis Approach for Digital Content Using Natural Language Processing View