ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2026
AI as a peer reviewer: a blinded comparative study of LLM-generated and human reviews in a cardiology journal.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2026. 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.
- AI as a peer reviewer: who and how evaluate manuscript value?European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- At the heart of peer review: why artificial intelligence concordance misses the human pulse.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific quality control, yet it is increasingly burdened by growing manuscript volumes and reviewer fatigue. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools to support scientific review, but it remains unclear whether AI-generated reviews are equivalent to human reviews on the endpoint that ultimately matters, agreement with the final editorial decision. Methods and results: We retrieved 40 manuscripts previously submitted to a cardiology journal (20 ultimately accepted, 20 Conclusion: LLM-generated peer reviews are non-inferior to human reviews in terms of agreement with the final editorial decision, while showing higher internal consistency, comparable quality on structured domains, and substantially shorter turnaround. These findings support the integration of AI as a complementary tool in editorial workflows, rather than as a replacement for human peer review.
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.