Why AI cannot do good science without humans
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The concern is not the use of LLMs per se, but whether they are integrated in ways that reinforce active reasoning and intellectual ownership, or instead encourage delegation of thinking itself.
“The concern, therefore, is not the use of LLMs per se, but whether they are integrated in ways that reinforce active reasoning and intellectual ownership, or instead encourage delegation of thinking itself 38 .”
From Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
The editorial (section D, p. 650) says AI scientists should empower human researchers, not replace them. Our copy also describes humans guiding and checking AI systems, but it does not specifically address whether integrating LLMs reinforces active reasoning and intellectual ownership or encourages delegation of thinking. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Towards end-to-end automation of AI research
Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R. T., Yamada, Y., Hu, S., Foerster, J., Ha, D., & Clune, J. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10265-5 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reimagining biomedical science workflows in the age of large language models
Roberts, K. F., Koutarapu, S., Melendez, J., Landsness, E. C., Reese, J. T., Elbert, D. L., & Bateman, R. J. (2026) · npj Dementia · doi:10.1038/s44400-026-00126-3
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2026-05-19
- Volume
- 653
- Issue
- 8115
- Pages
- 650-650
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W7161642531
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10
- FWCI
- 34.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in science, AI scientists, human wisdom, empathy, scientific progress, human-AI collaboration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
