Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42028402›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2026

AI for scientific discovery is a social problem.

Georgia Channing, Avijit Ghosh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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. 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. 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

2 authors.

Georgia ChanningHugging Face, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Avijit GhoshHugging Face, Brooklyn, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI is being increasingly applied to scientific research, but its benefits remain unevenly distributed across different communities and disciplines. While technical challenges such as limited data, fragmented standards, and unequal access to computational resources are already well known, social and institutional factors are often the primary constraints. Narratives emphasizing autonomous "AI scientists," the underrecognition of data and infrastructure work, misaligned incentives, and gaps between domain experts and machine-learning researchers all limit the impact of AI on scientific discovery. Four interconnected challenges are highlighted in this paper: community coordination, the misalignment of research priorities with upstream needs, data fragmentation, and infrastructure inequities. We argue that addressing these challenges requires not only technical innovations but also intentional community-building efforts, cross-disciplinary education, shared benchmarks, and accessible infrastructure. We call for reframing AI for science as a collective social project, where sustainable collaboration and equitable participation are treated as prerequisites for achieving technical progress.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecomputational equitydata curationdemocratizationfoundation modelsinterdisciplinary collaborationresearch infrastructurescientific discovery

Identifiers

PMID42028402
PMCPMC13100680

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.