How ChatGPT writes scientific titles in medical research: structural and content differences compared to human authors.

Objective: Scientific article titles play a central role in shaping research visibility, interpretation, and discoverability. With the rise of large language models like ChatGPT, there is growing interest in using AI tools to support title generation, yet little is known about how AI-generated title...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of the Medical Library Association Vol. 114; no. 3; pp. 222 - 238
Autores principales: Sebo, Paul, Nie, Bing, Wang, Ting
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: University of Pittsburgh, University Library System Jul2026
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=195364670&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 195364670
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15365050
        PI8
      jtl: Journal of the Medical Library Association
      issn: 15365050
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2026
      vid: 114
      iid: 3
      pid: 60406
      pub: University of Pittsburgh, University Library System
      place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        195364670
        195364670
        195364670
        10.5195/jmla.2026.2266
        195364670
      ppf: 222
      ppct: 16
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
      tig:
        atl: How ChatGPT writes scientific titles in medical research: structural and content differences compared to human authors.
      aug:
        au:
          Sebo, Paul
          Nie, Bing
          Wang, Ting
        affil: Researcher and Family Physician, University Institute for Primary Care (IuMFE), Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
      sug:
        subj:
          Artificial Intelligence, Generative
          Research, Medical
          Medical Writing
          Nomenclature
          Natural Language Processing
          Authors
          Abstracts
          Human
          Comparative Studies
          Content Analysis
          Random Sample
          Internal Medicine
          Vocabulary
          Grammar
          Study Design
          Public Health
          Outcomes Research
          Descriptive Statistics
          Linguistics
          Data Analysis Software
          Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
          McNemar's Test
          Publishing
      ab: Objective: Scientific article titles play a central role in shaping research visibility, interpretation, and discoverability. With the rise of large language models like ChatGPT, there is growing interest in using AI tools to support title generation, yet little is known about how AI-generated titles differ from those written by human authors. This study compared titles written by original authors to those generated by ChatGPT-4.0 from the same abstracts, focusing on structural and content-level differences. Methods: Fifty research articles published in 2000, before the advent of generative AI, were randomly selected from ten high-impact general internal medicine journals. For each, the structured abstract was submitted to ChatGPT-4.0 using a standardized prompt to generate a title. Human-written and AI-generated titles were then compared using quantitative measures (word and character counts, punctuation marks) and descriptive content analysis (study design, population descriptors, outcome emphasis, public health or clinical framing, temporal context). Paired statistical tests were applied to assess differences. Results: ChatGPT-generated titles were significantly longer than human-written titles (median 16 vs. 12.5 words, pvalue< 0.001) and included more characters and punctuation marks (colons in 100% vs. 30%; p-value<0.001). AI titles more often specified or clarified study design, detailed populations, emphasized outcomes, framed findings in public health or clinical terms, and incorporated temporal context. Conclusion: ChatGPT-4.0 produces more explicit and structured titles than human authors, emphasizing methodological clarity and content completeness. These findings raise important questions about norms in scientific communication and the need for further research and ethical guidance on AI-assisted writing.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N