ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Linguistic, Orthographic, and Typographical Errors in Science (LOTS): A Growing Threat to Academic Integrity.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Ethics of Prompting Large Language Models in Academic Publishing.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical engineers produce knowledge and artifacts. Across the life cycle of an idea, errors can creep in. In this letter, we propose the term linguistic, orthographic, and typographical errors in science (LOTS) to represent a category of errors that threaten the truthfulness and integrity of scientific literature and engineering projects. They include documented cases of the misuse of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). LOTS consist of four categories: (1) simple spelling errors; (2) the semantic deformation of technical terms, in the form of 'tortured phrases'; (3) letter or symbol-switching; and (4) formatting errors that impact the veracity of knowledge, or distort the precision of scientific representation, such as the absence or overuse of capitalization, the incorrect use or absence of italicization, the failure to deanonymize information, cloned template text, or GAI-generated "hallucinations." We introduce small analyses to assess the incidence of dopamine-ß-hydroxylase, ß-secretase, and ß-adrenoreceptors (erroneous Eszett formats) supposedly representing dopamine-β-hydroxylase (DBH), β-secretase, and β-adrenoreceptors, respectively, in PubMed. We suggest that virtuous biomedical engineers should address LOTS. To improve the screening of LOTS, we argue in favor of a common framework for scholarly text integrity analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41865151What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.