ArticlePLoS biology2025
AI-mediated translation presents two possible futures for academic publishing in a multilingual world.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI in transplantation: levelling the playing field and raising the methodological standards.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Article
- A scientific future shared with AI.PLoS biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As the availability and performance of artificial intelligence for language editing and translation continues to improve, we can imagine a future in which everyone can use their own language to write, assess, and read science. The question is, how can we achieve it?
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.