Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40787511›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025

Regulating the unseen hand: AI, authorship, and trust in medical science.

Naveen Gautam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [How to detect scientific texts generated with artificial intelligence?]Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Naveen GautamMaharajgunj Medical Campus, Institute of Medicine, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6291-333X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AI regulationartificial intelligenceauthorshiplarge language modelsmedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID40787511
PMCPMC12333814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.