# ChatGPT and Open-AI Models: A Preliminary Review
## 3 Literature Review
### Healthcare Topics  
[PERSON] et al. conducted a study to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT compared to the USMLE [32]. The authors formulated open-ended questions, which were converted into multiple-choice, single-answer questions. The study found that ChatGPT was accurate in more than 60% of its responses without requiring specific guidance from human trainers. ChatGPT produced understandable reasoning and provided relevant clinical insights, which increased confidence in its trustworthiness and comprehensibility. The authors proposed using ChatGPT to aid human learners in medical education and integrate it into clinical decision-making processes. Overall, the study highlights the potential of ChatGPT as a tool to enhance medical education and improve clinical decision-making. [PERSON] et al. used ChatGPT to generate a literature review on \"Digital Twin in Healthcare\" by rephrasing abstracts from Google Scholar's most cited papers on the topic [33]. On-topic questions were asked to ChatGPT to evaluate its comprehension of the topic. Using an authenticated plagiarism tool, the authors manually compared the plagiarism rates of the texts produced by ChatGPT with the corresponding texts on the web and in academic libraries. ChatGPT's paraphrasing showed high plagiarism rates, while its answers to on-topic questions showed low plagiarism rates. The authors concluded that ChatGPT's paraphrasing did not produce original texts and suggested that future academic publishing processes may require less human labor, allowing researchers to focus on their research. The authors plan to track citations to their work in future research to evaluate the theoretical validity of the information produced by ChatGPT. The study conducted by [PERSON] et al. involved the use of ChatGPT to produce a research article on vaccine effectiveness [34]. The authors generated a simulated dataset containing the diverse characteristics of 100,000 healthcare workers, which ChatGPT then utilized to analyze vaccine efficacy and develop a research paper. The study results demonstrate the potential of ChatGPT as a helpful research tool for conducting analyses and generating articles in various fields. However, the study also highlights the need for improvement in ChatGPT's ability to locate article references, which needs to be revised. In a literature review, [PERSON] examined the potential and valid concerns of using ChatGPT in healthcare education and research [35]. ChatGPT has the potential to overcome language barriers and promote equity and diversity in research. However, guidelines and regulations are urgently needed to ensure the safe and responsible use of ChatGPT to limit future complications. [PERSON] recommended a risk-based approach to assess the impact of ChatGPT from a healthcare perspective before its widespread adoption. The author concluded that the proactive embrace of LLM technologies, with careful consideration of ethical and legal issues, can expedite innovation in healthcare. The article by [PERSON] et al. presents a comprehensive evaluation of the pros and cons of using ChatGPT [36]. The researchers identified its ability to efficiently analyze vast amounts of data, extract relevant information, and organize it systematically as a significant advantage. However, they also raised several concerns, including the lack of context, inaccuracy, bias, and inadequate knowledge of medical sciences and language. These limitations of ChatGPT may impede its effectiveness in certain areas, so careful consideration is necessary when employing it for research or other purposes. [PERSON] et al. presented a comprehensive historical and technical analysis of ChatGPT, highlighting its potential applications in various domains, such as healthcare, education, and research [37]. The authors also discussed the limitations of ChatGPT, including its tendency to make errors in basic reasoning, logic, mathematics, and in presenting factual information.