ArticleHemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis2025
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing. The Danger of Trying Too Hard to Please.
Article in Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing. The Danger of Trying Too Hard to Please.Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The author describes his experience using several artificial intelligence programs to assist in the process of editing or preparing manuscripts for publication. While the programs were very useful to increase clarity and optimize the English of previously written text, problems arose when asked to review the literature to describe or expand on concepts, and then to cite references to support those statements. Citations were sometimes fabricated. The artificial intelligence program would even provide PubMed identification (PMID) numbers for references cited, which sometimes pointed to completely different publications. In references that were correctly cited, a request to extract data from their abstracts yielded data that were completely fabricated or incorrect. The newer versions of these artificial intelligence programs appear to be enormously helpful in helping with the process of scientific writing, but one needs to assiduously verify every statement made with regard to their interpretation of the medical literature and double-check any citations by retrieving and reading those references. Because statements made by these agents are proffered with great confidence and using excellent writing skills, the resulting errors can be difficult to anticipate. The motivations behind such errors are unknown, but appear to be related to a desire of AI to please the user at any cost. Programmers who create these tools somehow managed to allow such errors, and this issue must be addressed in future versions of AI. Also, it would help greatly if AI had access to the full text of medical scientific articles, which might be achieved by contractual agreements with the main medical publishers.
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.