Disproportionate AI-generated rat genitalia arrive in peer-reviewed journal | Top Vip News

The editors of the magazine. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology retracted an article after readers brought it to their attention that the supporting images had been incorrectly generated by an AI image generator. In their retraction, the editors report that the reason for the retraction was that “concerns were raised about the nature of their AI-generated figures.”

In the article, which included research on stem cells in small mammals, the authors included images depicting the rat’s anatomy that an artificial intelligence system had clearly created. In one image, a single rat appeared to have a penis and testicles larger than the rest of its body, something that does not occur in nature. Some of the accompanying text was also incomprehensible. Another image showed a rat cell that did not resemble the true structure of a rat cell.

The article’s disproportionate images are likely to add to ongoing discussions in the scientific community about the use of AI to generate text or images for use in technical articles, particularly those published in established journals.

In this case, it is unclear how such problematic images ended up in a peer-reviewed journal. The authors, a combined team from Hong Hui Hospital and Jiaotong University in China, made no attempt to hide the fact that they had used AI to create the images; they even gave credit to Midjourney.

Some in the press have pointed out that Borders has a policy that allows the use of AI-generated materials as long as their use is disclosed, as was the case in this case. But the policy also notes that attempts should be made to verify anything produced by such systems, which was clearly not the case in this mix-up.

The editors of Borders He initially published a note in the newspaper stating that the article had been corrected and that a new version would be published shortly. Not long after, the document was retracted.

The errors made by the authors of the article and the journal team that approved its publication are likely to be the first of many to come, although it is not yet clear what changes will be necessary to prevent such errors from occurring again in the future. . .