Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The papers appears solid in the overall, yet some typos have to be corrected, and some potential improvements concerning the results may be implemented (see the attached files for more specific comments).

The subject is (very) rapidly evolving, therefore the limitations expressed from the authors are of particular concern, as since May 2023 a lot of progresses have been witnessed - a lot of new functionalities have been introduced.

Under such perspective, extending the analysis at least to October/November 2023 would be highly recommendable.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Not particular comments here, as written before.

Please, see the attached files for more specific comments.

Author Response

March.8.2024

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for considering our manuscript entitled “Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach” (manuscript ID: ejihpe-2900327). We are grateful to your insight comments that triggering improvement of our manuscript. The manuscript has been meticulously revised in accordance with your suggestions, including a special thanks for your detailed recommendations. Enclosed are point-by-point responses to each comment. Changes made to the revised manuscript are highlighted using the “track changes” feature in the attached document.

In this revision, we refined the manuscript's terminology for clarity, maintaining the distinction of structural presentation and discussing varying perspectives. We also improved the analysis of limitations by adjusting inclusion criteria to focus on articles with substantive discussion on ChatGPT. Most importantly, we extended the study period to capture the latest (December 2023) to reflect the rapid evolving of this field.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript and are especially thankful for your detailed advice which guided our revisions. We hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology, and Education.

Sincerely yours,

Yu-Chun Chen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall Comment:

This article represents an interesting systematic review on the use of ChatGPT in improving medical case reports, the limitations and challenges for the future. The article is of course original and of current interests. However, I would express several major and minor comments before considering it for publication.

Major comments:

Abstract section/Introduction section: In these sections, it should appear that the article is a systematic review. This has been stated in the methods but must be introduced in the abstract and at the end of the introduction.

In the search strategy subsection, you should mention how the strategy took place. Were the citations screened by two reviewers? What about the full text? Later you mentioned the data extraction process with 3 reviewers. This has to be clarified. Also as recommended in systematic review, did you proceed to a quality assessment of the different articles? If yes, please provide the data, if not, please report the limitation. Methods related to systematic reviews should be followed or limitations should be stated.

Minor comments:

Limitations of the study : only one database was checked, it is often recommended that at least 3 databases are involved for systematic reviews.

End of the review was 1 June 2023 and we are in march 2024, it could be interesting to update the findings.

Author Response

March.8.2024

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for considering our manuscript entitled “Integration and Assessment of ChatGPT in Medical Case Reporting: A Multifaceted Approach”(manuscript ID: ejihpe-2900327). The manuscript has been meticulously revised in accordance with your suggestions. We are grateful to your insight comments that triggering improvement of our manuscript. Enclosed are point-by-point responses to each comment. Changes made to the revised manuscript are highlighted using the“track changes”feature in the attached document.

In response to feedback, we clarified our study as a bibliometric analysis, not a systematic review, due to the depth analysis on nature of articles. We updated the manuscript to reflect a clear review process and third-person narrative and acknowledging the limitation of using a single database. Most importantly, we extended our review period to December 2023, incorporating five more articles and refining our exclusion criteria for enhanced focus and quality.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript and hope that it is now suitable for publication in European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education.

Sincerely yours,

Yu-Chun Chen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper reads well. I found it interesting. 

The paper reads well. I found it interesting. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

Thank you for your encouraging comments.

Yu-Chun Chen

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors seem to have adequately addressed the observations raised in the previous step.

Some final minor grammar corrections, and some final comments in the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No particular comments to be provided

Author Response

Dear reviewer1, 

We are grateful to your insightful comments and we greatly appreciate your detailed advice which guided our revisions. We hope that the manuscript is now suitable for publication in the European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology, and Education.

Sincerely yours,

Yu-Chun Chen

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered to all my previous comments

Author Response

We are grateful to your encouraging comments.