Editing a Medical Article on ChatGPT at the JAMA Network: Navigating Terminology and Ethical Considerations
As the field of artificial intelligence continues to evolve, its impact on healthcare and medical research is becoming increasingly significant. Recently, I had the opportunity to edit an article published in the JAMA Network that explored the preferences of independent evaluators when comparing the quality and empathy of ChatGPT responses to physician responses on a public social media forum.
This editing experience shed light on the careful selection of terminology and adherence to ethical guidelines when discussing AI language models in the medical literature. In this blog post, we will delve into the nuances and considerations that emerged during the editing process.
Choosing Terminology
One of the key challenges encountered while editing the article was the selection of appropriate terminology. To maintain neutrality and avoid using proprietary names, the article referred to ChatGPT as a "chatbot" throughout the text, with the exception of the first reference in the body of the article. This approach ensured consistency and minimized potential biases associated with proprietary names.
Similarly, the public social media forum Reddit was referred to as such only after the first reference in the body. This decision aimed to strike a balance between providing clarity for readers and adhering to the editorial guidelines that discourage the overuse of proprietary names in the medical literature.
Ethical Considerations
A critical aspect of editing the article was ensuring compliance with the JAMA Network policy, which states that AI language models like ChatGPT cannot be considered authors. To reflect this, the article referred to ChatGPT as a "content generator" rather than an author. This distinction acknowledges the unique role of AI language models in generating content while upholding the principles of authorship and accountability in scientific publishing.
The policy also underscores the importance of transparency and avoiding any language that may inadvertently attribute human qualities or decision-making abilities to ChatGPT. By carefully scrutinizing the language used, the article maintained a clear distinction between the contributions of the content generator and the evaluations performed by independent human evaluators.
Implications and Future Perspectives
Editing this medical article highlighted the growing presence of AI language models in healthcare and medical research. It also emphasized the significance of accurately describing the role of these models while adhering to editorial and ethical guidelines.
Moving forward, it will be crucial for the scientific community to establish standardized terminology and guidelines for discussing AI language models in the medical literature. This will help ensure consistency and transparency in reporting findings, while also addressing potential ethical considerations surrounding authorship and accountability.
Editing a medical article about ChatGPT at the JAMA Network provided valuable insights into the complexities of discussing AI language models in healthcare and research. The careful selection of terminology, adherence to editorial guidelines, and consideration of ethical implications were essential aspects of the editing process. As the field continues to evolve, it is important for editors, authors, and publishers to collaborate in defining clear and consistent guidelines that accurately reflect the contributions and limitations of AI language models, ultimately enhancing the quality and integrity of medical literature.