Aim: To compare students' essay writing performance with or without employing ChatGPT-3 as a writing assistant tool. Materials and methods: Eighteen students participated in the study (nine in control and nine in the experimental group that used ChatGPT-3). We scored essay elements with grades (A-D) and corresponding numerical values (4-1). We compared essay scores to students' GPTs, writing time, authenticity, and content similarity. Results: Average grade was C for both groups; for control (2.39, SD=0.71) and for experimental (2.00, SD=0.73). None of the predictors affected essay scores: group (P=0.184), writing duration (P=0.669), module (P=0.388), and GPA (P=0.532). The text unauthenticity was slightly higher in the experimental group (11.87%, SD=13.45 to 9.96%, SD=9.81%), but the similarity among essays was generally low in the overall sample (the Jaccard similarity index ranging from 0 to 0.054). In the experimental group, AI classifier recognized more potential AI-generated texts. Conclusions: This study found no evidence that using GPT as a writing tool improves essay quality since the control group outperformed the experimental group in most parameters.

翻译：目的：比较学生在使用或不使用 ChatGPT-3 作为写作辅助工具时的论文写作表现。材料与方法：18 名学生参与本研究（对照组 9 人，实验组 9 人使用 ChatGPT-3）。我们采用等级（A-D）及对应数值（4-1）对论文要素进行评分，并比较论文得分与学生的 GPTs、写作时间、真实性和内容相似度。结果：两组平均等级均为 C，对照组为（2.39，标准差=0.71），实验组为（2.00，标准差=0.73）。所有预测变量均未对论文得分产生显著影响：组别（P=0.184）、写作时长（P=0.669）、模块（P=0.388）和平均绩点（P=0.532）。实验组的文本不真实性略高（11.87%，标准差=13.45 对比 9.96%，标准差=9.81%），但整体样本中论文间的相似度普遍较低（Jaccard 相似度指数从 0 到 0.054）。在实验组中，AI 分类器识别出更多潜在的 AI 生成文本。结论：本研究发现，由于对照组在大多数参数上优于实验组，因此没有证据表明使用 GPT 作为写作工具能够提高论文质量。