ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024
Generative artificial intelligence is infiltrating peer review process.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2026Article
- [Publish well in anesthesiology: Quality standards and dealing with predatory journals].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Article
- Protecting Peer Review from the Surge of Low Fidelity Systematic Reviews in the Generative AI Era.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact of an AI workshop on knowledge and attitudes toward AI in scientific publishing among surgeons at an international abdominal wall surgery congress.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Ethical Risks and Practical Limits.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2025Article
- Personal experience with AI-generated peer reviews: a case study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- The future of peer review: an editorial.BJGP open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.