ChatGPT and Other Large Language Models Are Double-edged Swords

Many medical authors and organizations have called for physician advocacy as a core component of medical professionalism. Despite widespread acceptance of advocacy as a professional obligation, the concept remains problematic within the profession of medicine because it remains undefined in concept, scope, and practice. If advocacy is to be a professional imperative, then medical schools and graduate education programs must deliberately train physicians as advocates. Accrediting bodies must clearly define advocacy competencies, and all physicians must meet them at some basic level. Sustaining and fostering physician advocacy will require modest changes to both undergraduate and graduate medical education. Developing advocacy training and practice opportunities for practicing physicians will also be necessary. In this article, as first steps toward building a model for competency-based physician advocacy training and delineating physician advocacy in common practice, the authors propose a definition and, using the biographies of actual physician advocates, describe the spectrum of physician advocacy.

ABSTRACT Inaccurate data in scientific papers can result from honest error or intentional falsification. This study attempted to determine the percentage of published papers that contain inappropriate image duplication, a specific type of inaccurate data. The images from a total of 20,621 papers published in 40 scientific journals from 1995 to 2014 were visually screened. Overall, 3.8% of published papers contained problematic figures, with at least half exhibiting features suggestive of deliberate manipulation. The prevalence of papers with problematic images has risen markedly during the past decade. Additional papers written by authors of papers with problematic images had an increased likelihood of containing problematic images as well. As this analysis focused only on one type of data, it is likely that the actual prevalence of inaccurate data in the published literature is higher. The marked variation in the frequency of problematic images among journals suggests that journal practices, such as prepublication image screening, influence the quality of the scientific literature.