次回の更新記事:【論文著者監修・コメント】AIエージェントへの人間…(公開予定日:2026年07月27日)
AIDB Daily Papers

エムダッシュの台頭:大規模言語モデル時代における医学論文での使用頻度の急増

原題: Em-ergence of the em-dash: a population-level rise in em-dash frequency in medRxiv preprints at the dawn of the large-language-model era
著者: Przemysław Czuma
公開日: 2026-06-28 | 分野: LLM 論文 ChatGPT cs.CL cs.AI cs.DL

※ 日本語タイトル・ポイントはAIによる自動生成です。正確な内容は原論文をご確認ください。

ポイント

  • 大規模言語モデルの普及前後で、医学系プレプリントの議論セクションにおけるエムダッシュの使用頻度を調査した。
  • 科学論文の執筆スタイルがLLMの影響で変化した可能性を、統計的な手法を用いて客観的に検証した点が新しい。
  • ChatGPT登場後にエムダッシュの使用率が約3倍に急増し、2025年には20%を超える結果となった。

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can leave subtle stylistic traces in assisted text; one of the most cited is the em-dash (Unicode U+2014). Yet no one has measured whether em-dash use has changed in the scientific literature. This study, pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (HFT8C), used the full set of medRxiv full-text XML preprints from the official Text-and-Data-Mining resource. The primary cohort was first, original versions deposited 2020-2025 with an extractable Discussion section of at least 500 characters (N = 69,632). The primary endpoint was the presence of at least one em-dash in the Discussion; the principal measure was the absolute change in its prevalence between the pre-ChatGPT era (before 30 November 2022) and the post-ChatGPT era, estimated with a logistic model with standard errors clustered by first author. The analysis plan (six supporting analyses, six sensitivity analyses, two falsification tests) was frozen before any confirmatory result was computed. Em-dash prevalence in Discussion sections rose from 4.23% before ChatGPT to 11.58% afterward, an absolute increase of 7.35 percentage points (95% CI 6.94-7.77; odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 2.77-3.17). The rise was not a sharp jump but a gradual, delayed acceleration: near 4% through 2023, 8.0% in 2024, and 20.3% in 2025. The effect survived every feasible sensitivity analysis (7.35-7.60 pp) and both falsification tests; a placebo split within the pre-LLM era showed no meaningful change (+0.13 pp, 95% CI -0.33 to +0.58), and was essentially absent in boilerplate sections. Independent LLM-associated lexical markers and within-paper section comparisons pointed the same way. The em-dash is a population-level indicator, not a per-paper detector of LLM use, and the design cannot establish causality; it shows that something in how scientific literature is written changed markedly in the early 2020s, and roughly when.

Paper AI Chat

この論文のPDF全文を対象にAIに質問できます。

質問の例:

AIチャット機能を利用するには、ログインまたは会員登録(無料)が必要です。

会員登録 / ログイン

関連するAIDB記事