AI reviews catch errors in 2026 clinical trials, beating human reviewers in 838 of 840 cases
RexDouglass · x · 2026-10-29
To rule out memorization of pre-2004 papers, researchers inserted the same errors into 58 trials published in 2026, including all eligible open-access phase 3 trials from July–October: AI detection ranged 58–99%, and 838 of 840 AI reviews still beat the human reviewer average. Heatmaps show GPT-6.1 Sol (94% major/81% minor), Sonnet 5 (91%/65%), GPT-5.5 (92%/62%), and Kimi K3 (89%/63%) detection rates across review dimensions like blinding, allocation concealment, and ethics approval.
More from AGI Musings
- Why a 95%-Accurate Prediction Model Can Still Be Useless in Hospitals — tallmetommy · 2026-10-29
- US models lead China's on use-case post-training and even frontier benchmarks — teortaxesTex · 2026-10-29
- repligate resurfaces an agent's first-person account of 'seeing layers of history in everything' — repligate · 2026-10-29
- Musk says saving for retirement will be 'irrelevant' in 10-20 years — XFreeze · 2026-10-29
- Progress podcast ep10: Dileep George on why today's AI is a dirigible and scaling isn't enough — kaixhin · 2026-10-29
- DHH: AI Tools Could Make the Best-vs-Worst Programmer Gap 1,000x — tristanbob · 2026-10-29