ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Regulating the unseen hand: AI, authorship, and trust in medical science.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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.
- [How to detect scientific texts generated with artificial intelligence?]Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
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
Large language models (LLMs) have transformed medical research and scientific publishing by facilitating manuscript preparation, literature synthesis, and editorial processes, yet pose significant threats to research integrity through generation of potential pseudoscientific content. Current AI detection algorithms demonstrate inconsistent reliability, particularly against paraphrased or humanized content, while LLM integration in peer review compromises expert critical evaluation and homogenizes scientific discourse. These systems exhibit documented bias against non-male, non-white researchers, compounding ethical concerns. Heterogeneous editorial policies regarding AI disclosure across medical journals create regulatory gaps enabling undetected misconduct. However, excessive focus on detection over content quality risks establishing counterproductive "AI phobia" that impedes legitimate technological integration. Preserving research credibility requires standardized disclosure frameworks, enhanced detection algorithms, comprehensive privacy safeguards, and mandatory AI watermarking systems to maintain scientific integrity while accommodating technological advancement in research practices.
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.