# LLMs catch more planted errors in clinical trial papers than untrained human reviewers

> Original title: > AI now catches far more errors in clinical trial papers than human peer reviewers: all 15 models tested scored 53% to 96% on planted er...

- Source: Rohan Paul
- Published: 2026-10-29T00:18:53.000Z
- Bad Influence: https://badinfluence.news/items/meiv49nbpx07im77ouiug2fax
- Original: https://x.com/rohanpaul_ai/status/2115599215368016343

## Summary

A preprint tested 15 large language models on planted methodological errors in clinical trial reports, with untrained human reviewers averaging 27% major-error detection. The models scored 53% to 96% on the original reports and 58% to 99% on 58 trials published in 2026, with Claude Opus 5.5 highest at 99%. The authors say humans caught text-table contradictions only 7% of the time, and review took 5 to 8.5 hours per human versus 1.4 to 16.3 minutes for the models.

## Post

> 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.

![](https://badinfluence.news/api/img-proxy?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FHVweLUdbMAApNg_.png&mode=thumb&exp=1793491200&sig=54edd95005bf43fe)

## Quoted post @rust_ruslan

> 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 🧵

https://x.com/rust_ruslan/status/2115493697001513053