Giovanni E. Cacciamani

Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Michael B. Eppler, Conner Ganjavi et al.

The swift progress and ubiquitous adoption of Generative AI (GAI), Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs), and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, have spurred queries about their ethical application, use, and disclosure in scholarly research and scientific productions. A few publishers and journals have recently created their own sets of rules; however, the absence of a unified approach may lead to a 'Babel Tower Effect,' potentially resulting in confusion rather than desired standardization. In response to this, we present the ChatGPT, Generative Artificial Intelligence, and Natural Large Language Models for Accountable Reporting and Use Guidelines (CANGARU) initiative, with the aim of fostering a cross-disciplinary global inclusive consensus on the ethical use, disclosure, and proper reporting of GAI/GPT/LLM technologies in academia. The present protocol consists of four distinct parts: a) an ongoing systematic review of GAI/GPT/LLM applications to understand the linked ideas, findings, and reporting standards in scholarly research, and to formulate guidelines for its use and disclosure, b) a bibliometric analysis of existing author guidelines in journals that mention GAI/GPT/LLM, with the goal of evaluating existing guidelines, analyzing the disparity in their recommendations, and identifying common rules that can be brought into the Delphi consensus process, c) a Delphi survey to establish agreement on the items for the guidelines, ensuring principled GAI/GPT/LLM use, disclosure, and reporting in academia, and d) the subsequent development and dissemination of the finalized guidelines and their supplementary explanation and elaboration documents.

Conner Ganjavi, Michael B. Eppler, Asli Pekcan et al.

We aim to determine the extent and content of guidance for authors regarding the use of generative-AI (GAI), Generative Pretrained models (GPTs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) powered tools among the top 100 academic publishers and journals in science. The websites of these publishers and journals were screened from between 19th and 20th May 2023. Among the largest 100 publishers, 17% provided guidance on the use of GAI, of which 12 (70.6%) were among the top 25 publishers. Among the top 100 journals, 70% have provided guidance on GAI. Of those with guidance, 94.1% of publishers and 95.7% of journals prohibited the inclusion of GAI as an author. Four journals (5.7%) explicitly prohibit the use of GAI in the generation of a manuscript, while 3 (17.6%) publishers and 15 (21.4%) journals indicated their guidance exclusively applies to the writing process. When disclosing the use of GAI, 42.8% of publishers and 44.3% of journals included specific disclosure criteria. There was variability in guidance of where to disclose the use of GAI, including in the methods, acknowledgments, cover letter, or a new section. There was also variability in how to access GAI guidance and the linking of journal and publisher instructions to authors. There is a lack of guidance by some top publishers and journals on the use of GAI by authors. Among those publishers and journals that provide guidance, there is substantial heterogeneity in the allowable uses of GAI and in how it should be disclosed, with this heterogeneity persisting among affiliated publishers and journals in some instances. The lack of standardization burdens authors and threatens to limit the effectiveness of these regulations. There is a need for standardized guidelines in order to protect the integrity of scientific output as GAI continues to grow in popularity.

Thomas Yu Chow Tam, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Sumit Kapoor et al.

With generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), continuing to make inroads in healthcare, it is critical to supplement traditional automated evaluations with human evaluations. Understanding and evaluating the output of LLMs is essential to assuring safety, reliability, and effectiveness. However, human evaluation's cumbersome, time-consuming, and non-standardized nature presents significant obstacles to comprehensive evaluation and widespread adoption of LLMs in practice. This study reviews existing literature on human evaluation methodologies for LLMs in healthcare. We highlight a notable need for a standardized and consistent human evaluation approach. Our extensive literature search, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, includes publications from January 2018 to February 2024. The review examines the human evaluation of LLMs across various medical specialties, addressing factors such as evaluation dimensions, sample types and sizes, selection, and recruitment of evaluators, frameworks and metrics, evaluation process, and statistical analysis type. Drawing on the diverse evaluation strategies employed in these studies, we propose a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of LLMs: QUEST: Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence. This framework aims to improve the reliability, generalizability, and applicability of human evaluation of LLMs in different healthcare applications by defining clear evaluation dimensions and offering detailed guidelines.