ReviewACS applied materials & interfaces2025
AI-Assisted Tools for Scientific Review Writing: Opportunities and Cautions.
Review in ACS applied materials & interfaces, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From AI anxiety to educational opportunity: equitable and practical uses of artificial intelligence in STEM education.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- The Landscape of Wearable Sensors and Automated Literature Analysis with Large-Language Models.ACS omega · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of large language models (LLMs) is reshaping the landscape of scientific writing, enabling the generation of machine-written review papers with minimal human intervention. This paper presents a pipeline for the automated production of scientific survey articles using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and modular LLM agents. The pipeline processes user-selected literature or citation network-derived corpora through vectorized content, reference, and figure databases to generate structured, citation-rich reviews. Two distinct strategies are evaluated: one based on manually curated literature and the other on papers selected through citation network analysis. Results demonstrate that increasing the input materials' diversity and quantity improves the generated output's depth and coherence. Although current iterations produce promising drafts, they fail to meet top-tier publication standards, particularly in critical analysis and originality. Results were obtained for a case study on a particular topic, namely, Langmuir and Langmuir-Blodgett films, but the proposed pipeline applies to any user-selected topic. The paper concludes with suggestions of how the system could be enhanced through specialized modules and discusses broader implications for scientific publishing, including ethical considerations, authorship attribution, and the risk of review proliferation. This work represents an opportunity to discuss the advantages and pitfalls introduced by the possibility of using AI assistants to support scientific knowledge synthesis.
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.