AI-Assisted Writing Across Medical Journals: Heterogeneity in Prevalence and Trends
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Estimates of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in the medical literature vary widely, potentially reflecting differences across journals. We estimated changes in the prevalence of AI-generated writing over time using abstracts from 12 general medical journals.
Methods
We randomly sampled up to 200 abstracts per journal-year from publications dated January 1, 2020, through August 8, 2026. Abstracts were scored using GPTZero, with journal-specific thresholds calibrated to fix a 1% false-positive rate (FPR) in the pre-AI baseline period (2020-2021). We estimated annual detector-positive proportions and calculated a publication-volume-weighted estimate across sampled journals. Associations with journal impact factor, publication model, and publication volume were examined descriptively.
Results
Among 15,268 abstracts, estimated prevalence of AI-generated text increased after 2022, with substantial variation in timing and magnitude across journals. In 2026 through August 8, prevalence estimates ranged from 5.7% (95% CI, 2.1%-10.0%) in the New England Journal of Medicine to 83.5% (95% CI, 77.1%-87.5%) in Frontiers in Medicine. The publication-volume-weighted estimate across sampled journals was 66.7% (95% CI, 64.0%-69.2%), and trends were insensitive to specification of false-positive rate in baseline data. The proportion of abstracts showing signs of AI-generated text was lower in journals with higher impact factors and higher in fully open-access journals.
Conclusions
Estimated prevalence of AI-generated text increased substantially across all sampled medical journals, with marked between-journal differences associated with journal impact factor and publication model. These findings support development of standardized, transparent AI reporting in medical publishing.
