在医学科研的浩瀚星空中，审稿意见宛如闪耀的星辰，指引着学术成果走向完善与升华。它们不仅决定着一篇论文的命运，更在宏观上把控着医学知识传承与发展的方向，是保障学术质量的关键环节。
传统的医学审稿意见撰写，是一项艰巨而复杂的任务。审稿人需凭借深厚的专业知识，深入剖析论文的研究方法，考量其是否严谨科学，能否经得起反复推敲。对于数据的处理和分析，要像侦探一样，敏锐地察觉其中可能存在的漏洞、偏差或不合理之处，确保结论建立在可靠的数据基石之上。在伦理层面，更需秉持高度的责任感，审视研究过程是否遵循了医学伦理的基本原则，保护了受试者的权益和尊严。然而，这一过程往往耗费审稿人大量的时间和精力，且由于个人知识储备和经验的局限性，可能会出现一些疏漏或不够全面的情况。
如今，AI 技术如同一道曙光，照亮了医学审稿这片领域，为解决传统审稿的困境带来了新的契机。
以 “行学 AI” 为例 ，我们来看看它在辅助生成医学审稿意见方面的初步探索。
我们输入指令prompt：“Generate a basic medical manuscript review comment in English, focusing on the research methodology, data analysis, and ethical considerations of the manuscript titled '[Manuscript Title]' in the field of [Research Area].”
（生成一份英文的基础医学论文审稿意见，重点关注标题为‘[论文标题]’、研究领域为‘[研究领域]’的论文的研究方法、数据分析和伦理考量。）
AI 生成的审稿意见示例如下：
Research Methodology: The methodology employed in this study appears to be generally sound. The authors have described the experimental design in a somewhat clear manner. However, more details could have been provided regarding the sample selection process to ensure its representativeness. The control group seems appropriate, but the methods of randomization and blinding, if applicable, should be further elaborated.
Data Analysis: The statistical analysis seems to be conducted appropriately. The authors have used common statistical tests, which are suitable for the type of data collected. However, it would be beneficial to include more information about the assumptions underlying these tests and whether they were met. Additionally, the presentation of the data in the figures and tables could be improved for better clarity.
Ethical Considerations: The manuscript mentions that ethical approval was obtained, which is a positive aspect. However, it lacks detailed information about the informed consent process, especially how the participants were informed about the potential risks and benefits of the study.
这份审稿意见虽然对各个关键方面都有所涉及，但整体较为宽泛和笼统，缺乏对论文具体问题的深入挖掘和针对性的建议，对于作者改进论文的指导作用有限。
于是，我们对指令prompt进行优化： “Generate a detailed and specific medical manuscript review comment for the manuscript titled '[Manuscript Title]' in the field of [Research Area]. Provide in-depth analysis and suggestions for improvement regarding the research methodology, such as the adequacy of the sample size for the complexity of the research question and the potential biases in the measurement tools. For data analysis, identify any possible errors in the data cleaning process and suggest alternative statistical methods if necessary. In terms of ethical considerations, discuss the potential ethical dilemmas that might have been overlooked and how they could be addressed. Use a professional and constructive tone.”
（为标题为‘[论文标题]’、研究领域为‘[研究领域]’的论文生成一份详细且具体的审稿意见。针对研究方法提供深入的分析和改进建议，例如针对研究问题的复杂程度样本量是否足够，以及测量工具可能存在的偏差。对于数据分析，指出数据清理过程中可能存在的任何错误，并在必要时建议替代的统计方法。在伦理考量方面，讨论可能被忽视的潜在伦理困境以及如何解决这些问题。使用专业且建设性的语气。）****
优化后，AI 生成了如下更具价值的审稿意见：
Research Methodology: The sample size of [X] participants, while not inherently small, may be insufficient considering the multiple variables and subgroups analyzed in this study. The authors should consider performing a power analysis to determine if the sample was adequately powered to detect meaningful differences. Regarding the measurement tools, the use of [Tool Name] may introduce a certain degree of measurement bias. It would be advisable to either validate this tool further or consider using an alternative, more widely accepted instrument. The recruitment process was not described in sufficient detail. Were there any exclusion criteria that could have affected the generalizability of the results?
Data Analysis: In the data cleaning process, it appears that [X] outliers were removed without a clear explanation of the criteria used. This could potentially skew the results. The authors should provide a detailed rationale for outlier removal. Additionally, while the primary statistical analysis was appropriate, a secondary analysis using a more robust method, such as [Suggested Statistical Method], could provide additional insights and strengthen the conclusions. The correlation analysis between [Variable A] and [Variable B] seems to assume a linear relationship, but the scatter plot suggests a possible non-linear pattern. This aspect should be further explored.
Ethical Considerations: Although the manuscript states that ethical approval was obtained, the description of the privacy and confidentiality measures is rather cursory. In a study involving sensitive patient data, more details about how the data was encrypted and stored to protect patient identities are needed. There is also a potential ethical issue regarding the compensation provided to the participants. Was it sufficient and did it introduce any undue influence? The authors should clarify and justify the compensation scheme.
通过优化指令，AI 生成的审稿意见更加精准、深入，切中论文的要害，不仅能够清晰地指出存在的问题，还能提供切实可行的改进建议，极大地提升了审稿意见的质量和实用性。AI 在医学审稿意见生成中的应用，使得审稿更高效、精准和全面，让我们拥抱 AI 技术，快乐科研。
