Editor's Note
AI in Medicine
AI Use in Research and the Need for Continued Guidance
Preeti N. Malani, Joseph S. Ross
JAMA Published Online: January 28, 2026
doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.26845
As artificial intelligence (AI) use proliferates, these tools have become an integral part of daily life for many people, including scientists. AI tools can review text to provide citations and optimize writing, perform data analysis, and even assist with initial brainstorming.1 This trend is expected to continue with the growing availability of generative AI, which is used to create new text, images, and code. However, transparency around use of these tools and research integrity remain paramount.2
This issue of JAMA includes 2 Research Letters that are likely to inform guidance on AI use in research. In the first report, Perlis and colleagues describe results from a cross-sectional study of all manuscripts submitted to 13 JAMA Network journals between August 29, 2023 (after questions about AI use were added to the submission process), and October 31, 2025.3 Among 105 538 manuscripts submitted during the 27 months of the study, 3459 (3.3%) declared use of AI. AI use increased significantly during this period, from 1.71% (95% CI, 1.27%-2.15%) to 5.97% (95% CI, 5.28%-6.66%). Reasons for AI use included correction or refinement of language (67.7%), statistical model development (7.3%), other data analysis (6.3%), manuscript drafting (5.5%), search and evaluation of literature (4.3%), and other purposes (8.8%). Manuscript characteristics associated with greater likelihood of reported AI use included being Viewpoints (odds ratio [OR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.56-2.03]) or Letters to the Editor (OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.50-1.97]) vs Original Investigations, corresponding authorship from a country without English as an official language (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.20-1.40]), and manuscripts that were ultimately rejected (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.05-1.62]) or withdrawn prior to review (OR, 8.48 [95% CI, 5.30-13.22]) vs accepted or asked to revise.
A second study comes from AlFayyad and colleagues, describing reported use of AI among research articles submitted to BMJ journals.4 The authors performed a cross-sectional study of all research manuscripts (including systematic reviews and meta-analyses) submitted between April 8 and November 6, 2024, to 49 BMJ journals. Among 25 114 eligible submissions, 1431 (5.7%) reported AI use. The most frequently disclosed AI tools were chatbots (56.7%), followed by writing assistants (12.7%). Most authors (87.2%) reported using AI to improve the quality of writing. The findings demonstrated an increase in AI use disclosure from 121 of 2693 (4.5%) in April 2024 to 286 of 3894 (7.3%) in October 2024. The difference in AI use disclosure across specific BMJ journals was not statistically significant (P = .06) nor between The BMJ and other BMJ journals (P = .32). Authors from South America (OR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.22-2.49]) and Europe (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.14-1.45]) were more likely to report AI use than authors from Asia.
Collectively these studies provide a useful snapshot of AI use in clinical research studies and other manuscripts published by JAMA Network and BMJ journals. Although actual use is likely higher due to underreporting, AI use is clearly increasing, as both the JAMA Network and BMJ journals observed an increase over time with the most recently available estimates of approximately 6%. The majority of submissions used AI to improve writing and refine language, but the increasing availability of generative AI tools is likely to lead more investigators to use AI for more advanced tasks typically considered key, intellect-driven aspects of the scientific process, such as summarizing the existing literature, analyzing data, and drafting manuscripts. Journal editors, publishers, and others should anticipate further increases in AI use and continue to develop guidance and boundaries to promote transparency and maintain research integrity.
