These are SUPPOSED to be peer reviewed
Check out this humdinger someone found on twitter the other day;-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
On the last paragraph before the conclusion;-
In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. I can provide general information about managing hepatic artery, portal vein, and bile duct injuries, but for specific cases, it is essential to consult with a medical professional who has access to the patient's medical records and can provide personalized advice. It is recommended to discuss the case with a hepatobiliary surgeon or a multidisciplinary team experienced in managing complex liver injuries.
As I'm not a medical person (My specialty is soil science and IT shit) I showed it to a couple of MD drinking buddies who thought the whole thing was hilarious but absolute gibberish. I'll quote one;- "I started the article thinking, 'Wait, that's not how that works. That's not how anything works!'. Then took a look at the last bit and thought, 'Ah. Yup.' Journal is shady af surely". So I'm not the only one who thought it utterly incomprehensible.
I found a couple usijng the "As my knowledge cuts off at 2021" phrase and yup. One slightly comical one aabout quantum physics where the AI tells the author the premise is nonsensical and another one about HIV treatment.
The physics one, eh... but these medical ones could get someone killed. Doctors use case reports for when they encounter unfamiliar symptoms or drug interactions or whatever as a way to feel out the field and see if anyone else has any idea on whats going on. Nonsense ones made up by cGPT just endanger patients with rare conditions. Its criminally negligent.