Preprint test reports higher error detection by AI in clinical trial papersMachine translation

> AI now catches far more errors in clinical trial papers than human peer reviewers: all 15 models tested scored 53% to 96% on planted errors, while untrained human reviewers averaged just 27%. > The result held on 58 new trials published in 2026, so the models weren’t simply recalling old papers they had seen in training; Claude Opus 5.5 scored highest at 99%. > Humans miss the errors that most change a trial’s meaning, catching text-table contradictions only 7% of the time, and they take 5 to 8.5 hours per review against AI’s 1.4 to 16.3 minutes.

Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵