ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While large language models (LLMs) have made a tremendous impact on scientific workflow, there are also serious concerns about ethical integrity and nondiverse written language in medical and orthopaedic literature. Recent studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the involvement of artificial intelligence (AI) in writing processes. Purpose: To (1) determine the extent of AI involvement in Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed abstracts from AJSM and organized these into 4 periods. We chose the year 2000 as a human baseline to establish a threshold for AI involvement. We also selected the years 2015 and 2020 to observe changes in AI probability scores. Considering the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, we included abstracts from 2023 to 2025 to determine the increase in AI usage. We classified articles into native English-speaking, non-native English-speaking, and mixed groups to determine authorship nativity based on institutional affiliations. We used Originality.AI to report AI probability scores. We evaluated differences across years and nativity groups using the Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc tests. Results: Across the 6 time periods, 1885 abstracts were analyzed. AI probability scores from the year 2000 (n = 124; mean, 1.68%) were significantly lower than all subsequent years ( Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the prevalence of AI-like linguistic patterns in AJSM abstracts has increased since the release of ChatGPT. AI adoption across all nativity groups suggests that AI has become a universal standard for efficient article writing, regardless of the language barrier encountered by non-native speakers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.