Large language models detect methodological errors that human peer review misses in clinical trials

Peer review is the principal quality control of published research, but methodological errors can go undetected. In an earlier experiment with errors inserted into three reports of randomized clinical trials, untrained human reviewers achieved a mean major-error detection score of 27%. Here, we tested whether 15 large language models (LLMs), including four open-weight models, detect the same errors. Their major-error detection scores ranged from 53% to 96%. To reduce the risk of memorization, we repeated the test on three clinical trials published in 2026. Scores ranged from 51% to 99%, and fr

This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Consult a healthcare professional before starting any supplement, treatment, or program: especially if you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or managing a health condition.