13
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
AI finds that a quarter million cancer research papers have been faked
Posted on 10/16/26 at 9:40 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 9:40 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
A 2026 study trained an AI on 2,202 cancer papers that had been identified as fake. It then applied this model to look into 2.65 million original cancer research papers published between 1999 and 2024. It flagged 261,245 papers as fake
- Over 178,000 flagged papers had Chinese institutional affiliations
- Roughly 36% of Chinese cancer research output in the dataset
- Iran was next at around 20%
This is a major problem because this can mean the medical community amplifies completely fake research and findings
“Every fabricated study sitting in a real journal is competing for attention with studies actually pointing towards a legit cure, which means the more fake noise there is, the longer it takes for the real breakthroughs to surface. And somewhere in that pile, maybe a real cure is buried under a fake AI-generated one.”
No doctors have gone to jail for this (I checked)
Posted on 10/16/26 at 9:42 am to Ailsa
quote:
Soyelbeaner
@soyelbeaner
11h
Replying to @WallStreetApes
The “peer group” organization used to vet research articles is a mafia/cartel. You have to pay for the organization to look at your research paper, and pay to have it published (if they approve/vet it).
If someone on the peer review panel doesn’t like you, or your research, they can blackball you or your research. They can also block research they believe is controversial or provocative—that can go against the the narrative they want to push on the public.
The peer review panel can also go the other way—if they like you/your research, or your pushing their narrative, they are more likely to approve your research paper.
It’s all BS now. There was a time when the organization was honest. That time is long gone
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 9:43 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:15 am to Ailsa
Seems like AI will be the ultimate answer to this.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:20 am to Ailsa
If you think the cancer 'treatment' model was actually anything about curing people of cancer and not just a way to extract billions from patients.. I can't help you.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:22 am to saints5021
That also seems like a small number.
AI is the follow on tool after the internet to induce the stupid and lazy to completely stop thinking for themselves.
AI is the follow on tool after the internet to induce the stupid and lazy to completely stop thinking for themselves.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:23 am to Ailsa
Interesting when you consider that Trump has let in a quarter million Indians to be “doctors”
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:23 am to Ailsa
Even before AI we knew that half of “scientific” findings could not be replicated.
Junk science has been around a long time.
Junk science has been around a long time.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:25 am to Ailsa
quote:
A 2026 study trained an AI on 2,202 cancer papers that had been identified as fake. It then applied this model to look into 2.65 million original cancer research papers published between 1999 and 2024. It flagged 261,245 papers as fake
- Over 178,000 flagged papers had Chinese institutional affiliations
- Roughly 36% of Chinese cancer research output in the dataset
- Iran was next at around 20%
This is a major problem because this can mean the medical community amplifies completely fake research and findings
“Every fabricated study sitting in a real journal is competing for attention with studies actually pointing towards a legit cure, which means the more fake noise there is, the longer it takes for the real breakthroughs to surface. And somewhere in that pile, maybe a real cure is buried under a fake AI-generated one.”
No doctors have gone to jail for this (I checked)
Kinda like Covid-19 data?
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:31 am to Ailsa
quote:
Roughly 36% of Chinese cancer research output in the dataset - Iran was next at around 20%
This is likely not about just hiding a potential cure. How many suggest treatments or practices that cause more harm?
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:38 am to Ailsa
quote:
A 2026 study trained an AI on 2,202 cancer papers that had been identified as fake. It then applied this model to look into 2.65 million original cancer research papers published between 1999 and 2024. It flagged 261,245 papers as fake
I don't trust AI that much on stuff like this, but it is something that should be investigated to confirm and reveal if it is true.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:48 am to Ailsa
TRUST THE SCIENCE
on
[OFF]
on
[OFF]
Posted on 10/16/26 at 10:50 am to Ailsa
Y'all sure do like trusting X posts that don't link to what they reference.
Is X considered peer reviewed?
Is X considered peer reviewed?
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:01 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Interesting when you consider that Trump has let in a quarter million Indians to be “doctors”
Not so much when you understand that "publish or perish" culture has been the major facilitating factor in this since long before Trump.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:16 am to Clames
The paper mills are a known problem in the professional world. The broader issues come with the general public that doesn't recognize or understand that problem, and it cuts in all directions. Throw in the fact that "research" — in the scope that it is consumed and used by the general public — has been reduced to just another tool to beat their political opponents with and you begin to see the real problem. People don't seek knowledge, they seek validation, damn the real world viability of the info they gather.
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 11:20 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:26 am to saints5021
quote:
Seems like AI will be the ultimate answer to this.
Maybe, but AI pulls its data from things like journals. If the journals are BS, AI is going to give BS answers
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:29 am to saints5021
quote:
Seems like AI will be the ultimate answer to this.
I look forward to the day when SI replaces most of the medical field. I know a lot of people won't like hearing that, but look at what the medical community did during COVID. It's a giant fricking sham, folks. Wait and see how ridiculous this thread will get as soon as user "onmymedicalgrind" shows up to defend this bullshite. Because he definitely will.
This post was edited on 10/16/26 at 11:35 am
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:34 am to supadave3
quote:
Maybe, but AI pulls its data from things like journals. If the journals are BS, AI is going to give BS answers
This is why it is important to create systems that can conduct honest investigations without giving privilege to academic consensus. Systems with rigid epistemic integrity.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:35 am to Ailsa
AI SLOP Bros ..... destroyed 
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:36 am to BoarEd
quote:
This is why it is important to create systems that can conduct honest investigations without giving privilege to academic consensus.
Of all the things that will never happen ..... this will not happen most.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 11:41 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Interesting when you consider that biden has let in a quarter million Indians to be “doctors”
FIFY
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News