ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2025
Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Statistical Errors: Implications for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 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.
- Statistical Competence and Editorial Policies in Biomedical Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Accuracy of Large Language Models in Selecting Appropriate Statistical Tests for Healthcare Research.Cureus · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choosing the right statistical tests is essential for reliable results, but errors, like picking the wrong test or misinterpreting data, can easily lead to incorrect conclusions. Research integrity implies presenting research that is honest, clear, and uses correct statistics. By identifying statistical errors, artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Statcheck and GRIM-Test increase the reliability of research and assist reviewers. AI helps non-experts analyze data, but it can be unpredictable for experts dealing with complex data analysis. Still, its ease of use and growing abilities show promise. Recent studies show that AI is increasingly helpful in research, assisting in spotting errors in methodology, citations, and statistical analyses. Tools like LLMs, Black Spatula, YesNoError, and GRIM-Test improve accuracy, but they need good data and human checks. AI has moderate accuracy overall but performs better in controlled settings. The Statcheck and GRIM-Test are especially good at spotting statistical errors. As more studies are retracted, AI offers helpful, albeit imperfect, support. It can speed up peer review and reduce reviewer workload, but it still has limits, such as bias and a lack of expert judgment. AI also brings risks like misreading results, ethical issues, and privacy concerns, so editors must make final decisions. To use AI safely and effectively, large, well-labeled datasets, teamwork across fields, and secure systems are required. Human oversight is always necessary to review research processes and ensure their reliability; humans must make the final decision and utilize AI responsibly.
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.