bioRxivScientific Communication & EducationPreprint
Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Writing in the Biomedical Literature
Abstract
Generative AI systems are rapidly being integrated into scientific workflows, yet the specific ways in which AI-generated prose appears in published literature remain poorly characterized. Here, we use Pangram, a transformer-based detector optimized for adversarial paraphrasing, to analyze full-length biomedical research articles from 13 major journals. Papers published in 2021-2024 showed almost no detectable AI-generated text, whereas manuscripts published in 2025 exhibited a sharp increase, with 12.4% containing at least one localized passage classified as AI-written. AI usage was highly nonuniform across authors and geography: 32% of papers originating from South Korean institutions and 26% papers from Chinese institutions contained AI-generated passages, compared to 7.4% from U.S. institutions. In a focused case analysis, six labs that published fully AI-generated manuscripts also produced additional papers with extensive AI-generated segments. Journals likewise differed, with high-selectivity venues rarely containing AI-authored prose, while high-volume journals accounted for most AI-positive manuscripts. Together, these findings provide the first detailed empirical map of how and where AI-generated writing is entering the scientific literature, underscoring the need for clear norms and policies governing the use of generative AI in scientific communication.
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: database / resource
- research focus: software / tool
- approach: transformer / foundation model
- Citations
- 4
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Have AI-Generated Texts from LLM Infiltrated the Realm of Scientific Writing? A Large-Scale Analysis of Preprint Platforms
H. Cheng, B. Sheng, … Y.-F. Zheng·bioRxiv·Mar 25, 2024
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers
C. A. Gao, F. M. Howard, … A. T. Pearson·npj Digital MedicinePeer-reviewed·Apr 26, 2023
- Negligible participation in the scientific literature of AI unicorn startups
Quentin Emile Armand Loisel, Alejandro Sandoval‐Lentisco, John P. A. Ioannidis·bioRxiv·Jul 16, 2026
- ChatGPT identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review
J. P. H. Verharen·bioRxiv·Jul 18, 2023
- DOME Copilot: A resource to automate transparent reporting of artificial intelligence methods
Gavin Farrell, Omar Abdelghani Attafi, … Silvio C. E. Tosatto·bioRxiv·Jul 24, 2026
- Artificial Intelligence's Contribution to Biomedical Literature Search: Revolutionizing or Complicating?
Rui Yip, Young Joo Sun, … Vinit B. Mahajan·PLOS Digital HealthPeer-reviewed·May 12, 2025