ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2026
Recalibrating academic expertise in the age of generative AI.
Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of generative AI (GenAI) into academic workflows represents a fundamental shift in scientific practice. While these tools can amplify productivity, they risk eroding the cognitive foundations of expertise by simulating the very tasks through which scientific competence is developed, from synthesis to experimental design to writing. Uncritical reliance can lead to skill atrophy and AI complacency. We propose a framework of essential AI meta-skills: strategic direction, critical discernment, and systematic calibration. These constitute a new form of scientific literacy that builds on traditional critical thinking. Through domain-specific examples and a pedagogical model based on situated learning, we show how these meta-skills can be cultivated to ensure that researchers, particularly trainees, maintain intellectual autonomy. Without deliberate cultivation of these meta-skills, we risk creating the first generation of researchers who serve their tools rather than direct them.
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.