Yes, AI assistants can review a medical essay for clarity and structure, but you must disclose use and keep final judgment human.

Yes, limited first-person voice is allowed in medical reviews when describing your actions, if the target journal permits it.

No, ChatGPT can assist with summarizing studies, but it can’t replace a rigorous medical literature review led by qualified researchers.

No, ChatGPT can’t replace expert peer review of medical articles; it only helps with clarity, summaries, and checklist prompts.

Yes, an AI assistant can scan medical text for clarity, but never for final clinical judgment or private patient details.

No, ChatGPT can’t independently complete a medical literature review; it helps with wording, search ideas, and summaries under expert oversight.

Yes, ChatGPT can help with a medical literature review, but expert control, source checks, and full disclosure are non-negotiable.

Yes, websites can help a medical review, but base conclusions on peer-reviewed studies and treat web pages as supplementary or grey sources.

Yes, you can cite systematic reviews in a medical literature review when they are current, high-quality, and used with care to avoid overlap.

Yes, using a systematic review within a medical review is acceptable when you cite it transparently and explain how you used its methods and findings.