Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being utilized in medical writing for literature searches, evidence synthesis, draft creation, summary, language editing, reference analyses, and manuscript preparations. Evidence on the relative performance, reliability, and maturity of different tools is often fragmented. This review aimed to present a function-based comparison of selected global and Indian or India-focused tools relevant to the medical-writing process. The applications, underlying technologies, benefits, limitations, evidence maturity, and contextuality in the Indian setting were described. The technologies include natural language processing, machine learning, generative artificial intelligence, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, and AI-assisted evidence analysis tools. While the use of AI can enhance efficiency and reduce some burdensome processes, hallucination, fake references, biases, poor reproducibility, privacy concerns, limited contextual understanding, and lack of transparency hinder autonomous use. The novelty of this review includes the provision of a Global–Indian perspective. Thus, AI needs to be considered an assistant requiring human intervention, scientific and ethical safeguards, and further research to develop standardized tool-specific frameworks for evaluations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deore et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: