Skip to content
Back to the collection

Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary

Dmitry Kobak, Rita González-Márquez, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát, Jan Lause

2024 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
3
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can generate and revise text with human-level performance. These models come with clear limitations: they can produce inaccurate information, reinforce existing biases, and be easily misused. Yet, many scientists use them for their scholarly writing. But how wide-spread is such LLM usage in the academic literature? To answer this question for the field of biomedical research, we present an unbiased, large-scale approach: we study vocabulary changes in over 15 million biomedical abstracts from 2010--2024 indexed by PubMed, and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words. This excess word analysis suggests that at least 13.5% of 2024 abstracts were processed with LLMs. This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals, reaching 40% for some subcorpora. We show that LLMs have had an unprecedented impact on scientific writing in biomedical research, surpassing the effect of major world events such as the Covid pandemic.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

3 selected excerpts · 3 total mentions

wietze
Neutral mention · rule
Although "eager" isn't called out, a recent study of academic publications shows that the use of LLMs can be measured through word frequency analysis [1], finding certain words are disproportionally represented: > We study vocabulary changes in 14 million PubMed abstracts from 2010–2024, and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words. 1: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07016v1
a_bonobo
Neutral mention · rule
There is some circumstantial evidence that the word 'delves' implies that ChatGPT wrote it. Some evidence here: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07016v2 >Less common words with strong excess usage included delves (=28.0), showcasing (=10.2) and underscores (=10.9), together with their grammatical inflections (Figure 2a). But of course, that isn't a smoking gun, it might just be coincidence. The linked arxiv paper itself uses 'delves', probably tongue-in-cheek :)

Keep following the thread.

More in Biology & medicine

More from the same topics.