This UT Southwestern Medical Center study hypothesizes that human reviewers and artificial intelligence detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and artificial intelligence-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. These research findings highlight the fallibility of relying on humans for AI detection and the potential utility of AI detectors for research reviewers. Although ChatGPT shows promise due to ease of use, questions exist regarding the quality of responses, particularly within the field of medicine.