AI and the Art of Medical Writing: APAC’s Journey from Caution to Collaboration
Bridging the Gen AI Gap in Medical Writing: Insights from the APAC Region
Asia Pacific (APAC) has become a significant player in generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in the medical writing market, driven by rapid industrialization, growing pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, and increasing adoption of advanced technologies. Nations in the region are leveraging their cost advantages and expanding clinical research capabilities to integrate AI into medical writing processes. Furthermore, government support through policy reforms and investments in AI-driven healthcare has further accelerated this growth. With a mix of established economies and emerging markets, Asia Pacific offers a diverse and dynamic landscape for AI in medical writing.[1]
Standing at the crossroads of technology and medical communication, the topic of integrating AI into medical writing continues to be a buzzing yet contentious issue. While the US and Europe appear well ahead of the rest, discussions held on 27th Sep 2024 during the ISMPP APAC virtual event showed distinctly that the adoption of Gen AI is lingering across the APAC region. This often stems from general hesitancy associated with data privacy concerns and qualms about AI-generated content. Despite these challenges, AI is increasingly influencing various sectors across the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, notably in publishing and medical writing.
The Reluctance to Embrace Gen AI in APAC
In most APAC companies, the integration of Gen AI into their workflows is a cautious one. Quite patently, there is some apprehension toward making an AI engine responsible for highly sensitive medical information. Data privacy ranks high, and many participants have mentioned the fear that once information is fed into an AI ecosystem, it is lost to control. Consequently, AI in healthcare and medical communication faces significant challenges, including data privacy risks, algorithmic bias, ethical concerns, and clinical validation gaps. The lack of transparency in AI-generated content and regulatory uncertainty fuels skepticism, particularly in medical writing.
Besides, overreliance on AI risks misinformation, while resistance persists due to job displacement fears. Effective adoption requires robust validation, ethical governance, and human oversight [2]. Skepticism persists due to AI’s inability to generate original ideas, potential bias, and lack of critical thinking. The absence of clear regulations and disparities in AI accessibility further fuel doubts. While AI can assist researchers, human oversight remains essential to ensure credibility and integrity [3].
A Way Forward?
Instead, what desired was more and wider information on what type of data would be safe to put into these sorts of systems. The other interesting domain of consideration is research into options in encryption that guarantee that the data used by Gen AI will remain completely within the control of the company. Such steps could lead to an easier adaptation of AI tools across the region.
Gen AI: A Tool for the Small but not the Big?
In the conversation, several participants said that Gen AI does have its uses, especially for minor tasks like formatting or finding quick pieces of information. For larger tasks, for example, manuscript drafting, the feelings were essentially the same: Gen AI just doesn’t cut it. This could be due to a lack of exploration into what full potential the tool actually has; many writers tried it once and, finding it lacking, moved onward without any further investigation.
Missed Potential?
Incidentally, there was hardly any mention of use cases that would be considered intermediate. The creation of sections of a manuscript, summarization of complex data, and even assistance with reference management were not very much discussed. Could this gap in usage be a matter of not knowing or being taught how to properly use Gen AI for these more complicated tasks? It is also worth considering whether early negative experiences were due to underutilization of their potential, rather than actual shortcomings.
Strengths of Gen AI: Literature Searches and Mapping
Nevertheless, certain strengths could be demonstrated to the participants by Gen AI. Literature search and author mapping were considered niche areas where AI excelled. Indeed, many participants found this advantage of Gen AI in sifting through volumes of data without wasting any time, while providing organized and structured outputs, a big plus. This feature can save hours if not days of manual work by medical writers to focus on higher-order tasks that require their expertise.
Where Human Writers Still Reign: Storytelling and Nuanced Narratives
The discussion surged upon the fact that no matter how advanced AI will become, medical writers will still have an edge: telling stories. Indeed, AI can write grammatically correct, coherent text; however, it is the human touch that makes the big difference when it comes to nuanced, inspirational narratives. Medical writing is not just about presenting facts, but rather how those facts are hemmed into a story that resonates with audiences; be they healthcare professionals, regulatory authorities, or patients.
There is finally some comfort for writers operating out of APAC and beyond: while AI development continues, with each passing day it is becoming more useful and probably won’t replace nuanced creativity and insight by human writers. Many health care professionals (HCPs) in APAC prefer using a non-English language for daily communication and providing feedback on medical publications, even though English remains the primary language for peer-reviewed journals. Requiring English-only feedback may lead to loss of scientific detail, as HCPs often provide more substantive input in their native language.
Implementing global publication guidelines in APAC is challenging with 64% of professionals agreeing that these guidelines often do not consider local norms. The lack of adherence is mainly due to low awareness rather than non-compliance, and some local-language journals do not follow global standards. Additionally, many APAC authors do not always disclose conflicts of interest or recognize the need for data sharing, highlighting a need for education. Translating and localizing guidelines are helping improve compliance, with publication professionals playing a key role in bridging these gaps. Adapting guidelines to APAC’s language and cultural needs will enhance scientific communication and publication quality.[4]
HCPs in the APAC region encounter language barriers that affect patient interactions, treatment adherence, and overall satisfaction. Communication challenges can compromise patient safety and add to HCP stress. In multicultural settings like Singapore, adapting to diverse linguistic needs is essential. Research indicates that miscommunication lowers satisfaction for both patients and providers. Utilizing translation services, interpreter support, and AI-powered tools can enhance healthcare delivery. Healthcare institutions are encouraged to integrate communication training for cultural competence. Digital translation tools and region-specific medical content also improve patient engagement. Tackling these issues leads to better healthcare outcomes across the APAC region. [5,6]
Moving Forward: Collaboration, Not Competition
The future of medical writing may well be one where there is far more integrated collaboration between human writers and Gen AI. As data privacy concerns are overcome, and more companies provide training on how to use these tools effectively, the attitude could evolve across APAC. However, current research lacks a comparative analysis of AI adoption and use cases across different APAC countries such as Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and India. A comprehensive study examining these regional variations would provide valuable insights into how cultural, economic, and regulatory frameworks influence AI implementation across Asia-Pacific.
Thus, the growing pains of adopting Gen AI in medical writing, particularly from the APAC region, were underlined. As the world rapidly plunges toward AI-driven solutions, companies from APAC could balance innovation with caution. To the medical writers themselves, Gen AI promises exciting possibilities, but it cannot replace the soul of medical writing which is ‘the human touch’ needed to tell compelling stories from data points. Success will lie in positioning Gen AI to support and complement, rather than replace the specific skills that a medical writer brings into the mix.
Acknowledgments
I would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to the ISMPP committee for such great organization and support in bringing this event alive. The commitment to moving forward in the medical communications field is an inspiration.
Special thanks to all APAC participants for their open insights and experiences so freely shared in the breakout sessions. Your frank discussions and thoughtful contributions truly enhanced our dialogue, and this event indeed proved to be a very fruitful learning experience for each one of us present. We are together creating such a spirit of collaboration that is promoting innovation and growth within our field. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey!
Finally, I am grateful to Daniel Garlick, BA, MSci, Deputy Division Head – APAC MedComms, Costello Medical, Singapore, whose collaborative expertise and unwavering support were instrumental in co-facilitating this well-informed interactive session.
References
- Asia Pacific AI In Medical Writing Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Type, By End Use (Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, Medical Devices, and Other End Use), By Country and Growth Forecast, 2024 – 2031 Accessed on 10/feb/2025.Available at Asia Pacific AI In Medical Writing Market Size Report | 2031
- Khan B, Fatima H, Qureshi A, Kumar S, Hanan A, Hussain J, Abdullah S. Drawbacks of artificial intelligence and their potential solutions in the healthcare sector. Biomed Mater Devices. 2023 Feb 8;1–8. doi: 10.1007/s44174-023-00063-2.
- Salvagno M, Taccone FS, Gerli AG. Can artificial intelligence help for scientific writing? Crit Care. 2023;27(75). doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04380-2.
- Carruthers, A., Chung, H., Crawford, R., Lee, J. H. Y., & Lee, J. (2024). Author language and communication preferences, and familiarity with global publication guidelines, for English-language industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific: Insights from a cross-sectional survey. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 40(10), 1809-1819. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2024.2396532
- Imafuku, R., Kwakami, C., Hayakawa, K., & Saiki, T. (2024). Towards developing health communication education in globalising East Asia. TAPS, 9(1), 58–60. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2024-9-1/PV3064
- Al Shamsi H, Almutairi AG, Al Mashrafi S, Al Kalbani T. Implications of language barriers for healthcare: A systematic review. Oman Med J. 2020 Mar 1;35(2):e122. https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2020.40
Facilitator and Author:
Function Head, Medical Communications – Enago Life Sciences
Connect with Raghuraj on LinkedIn