What should researchers do in the era of artificial intelligence?
Min Cheol Chang

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Artificial Intelligence Applications · AI in Service Interactions
The current pace of change in medical research has surpassed that of previous technological turning points. Emerging large language models are transforming how research is performed and papers are written, redefining the roles of researchers [1-4].
From the era of searching and reading papers to the era of asking artificial intelligence
Previously, researchers were required to read and summarize numerous research papers and reviews. However, nowadays, researchers can instantly obtain the outline and core concepts of papers with reasonable accuracy by asking artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) to “Summarize recent research trends on this topic.” AI is no longer a simple research tool but has established itself as a knowledge partner that integrates, structures, and provides the information that researchers require. Although AI’s answers are not yet perfect, it is evident that how we read and review papers before starting research is changing to “asking AI first to set the research direction.” Moreover, when clinicians previously had insufficient knowledge during the process of diagnosing and treating patients, they searched for and read related papers, integrated and summarized them, and then applied them in clinical practice. However, they can now directly ask AI tools, such as GPT, what they do not know and can make clinical judgments based on the answers.
The era of artificial intelligence-assisted paper writing: the changing roles of researchers
An increasing number of researchers are actively using AI to write abstracts, introductions, methods, and discussions. The first draft can be generated when they instruct AI to “write in this order, including these contents, and in this tone.” AI now offers increasingly advanced levels of automation, not only for sentence construction, but also for logical structures, reference formatting, tables, and figures. This implies that “designing the structure and content of manuscripts” is an emerging and important capability. In other words, researchers are becoming supervisors and evaluators rather than primary producers of sentences.
Core abilities of the future: “ability to discern what to research” and “ability to directly create research data”
Although AI can summarize the existing literature, highlight knowledge gaps, and suggest potential research directions, it cannot fully replace the deeper contextual judgment required to determine which ideas are truly meaningful, clinically relevant, or feasible. The ability to discern what should be studied, which is grounded in real-world experience, intuition, and domain expertise, remains a unique human capacity. Furthermore, AI cannot independently generate real patient data or conduct experiments. Thus, for clinicians and researchers, the ability to accumulate patient data, conduct experiments, and create data is a key competitive advantage.
Conclusion: artificial intelligence redefines the role of researchers
AI saves researchers time, increases knowledge accessibility, and maximizes research efficiency. Although AI can summarize existing research, highlight knowledge gaps, and even suggest potential directions for future studies, deeper contextual evaluations, such as determining clinical relevance, prioritizing meaningful research questions, and interpreting findings in real-world settings, still require human expertise. Moreover, AI cannot independently generate clinical or experimental data, making the ability to directly create and accumulate research data an essential competency for future researchers. As AI continues to evolve, researchers increasingly function as “designers of knowledge” who set research directions, ensure scientific validity, and produce data based on their own insights. However, despite its growing utility, AI has some limitations, including the risk of hallucinations, ethical concerns such as potential patient data exposure, and the need for greater transparency in the production and use of AI-generated information. The development of AI is a transformative change that redefines researchers’ roles and requires them to assume more advanced responsibilities. We are already standing at the center of these changes.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Ahn S Large language model usage guidelines in Korean medical journals: a survey using human-artificial intelligence collaboration J Yeungnam Med Sci 2025421410.12701/jyms.2024.0079439659196 PMC 11812075 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Ah-Yan C BoissonnaultÈ Boudier-Revéret M Mares C Impact of artificial intelligence in managing musculoskeletal pathologies in physiatry: a qualitative observational study evaluating the potential use of Chat GPT versus Copilot for patient information and clinical advice on low back pain J Yeungnam Med Sci 2025421110.12701/jyms.2024.0115139610054 PMC 11812099 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Biswas R Mukhopadhyay A Mukhopadhyay S Performance of large language models in fluoride-related dental knowledge: a comparative evaluation study of Chat GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Copilot, and Grok 3J Yeungnam Med Sci 2025425310.12701/jyms.2025.42.5340897351 PMC 12800559 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Chang MC Development of an automated foot contact area measurement program for podoscopes using Chat GPT-4: a case report J Yeungnam Med Sci 2025421310.12701/jyms.2024.0132639623860 PMC 11812087 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
