Now that I am back in clinic full-time I have tried and failed to pick up on the more clinical podcasts. Both ASCO and ASH have their podcast series, but they are all so formal and scripted you can see the teleprompter scrolling in front of the speakers’ eyes.
One potentially bright note could have been Cancer Stories, which are spoken versions of Journal of Clinical Oncology’s Art of Oncology article series. Note the past tense; I have a longstanding antipathy towards “narrative medicine”, a mode of fiction in which doctors combine patient stories, or present a single patient’s story anonymously, to make a point. The fallen king of narrative medicine was the neurologist Oliver Sacks, and look at how that turned out. Social media are of course an even more fertile ground for this kind of fakery; I won’t go into the X, Bluesky, Mastodon, TikTok and YouTube accounts that are completely full of it, but there is a lot of content out there and all of it — all of it — is bullshit.
So I was hoping that these stories being published in a peer-reviewed journal would at least be closer to the truth. And I’m not saying they are not, an inch or two closer, with cases not being invented out of whole cloth. What I am saying is that JCO editors are incapable of recognizing AI slop and the very first story I listened to was full of it.
It was disconcerting to hear a professional voice narrate The Liver We Share in the April edition of the podcast. In the story, BU medical student Ryan Wexler writes about his experience as a living donor to his then-fiance now-wife who needed a new liver. Quoth Wexler: “When I learned I was a match, relief arrived not as joy, but as quiet permission to hope.” The hope was justified, for everything went well: “Her recovery, and our journey as a whole, bears little resemblance to the decisive triumph I once imagined. It is quieter, ongoing, and more powerful for it.” Yes, yes, so much quiet. Other empty metaphors and nonsensical turns of phrase abound.
Did Wexler feel bad, I wondered, when the completely credulous host and a great hematologist Mikkael Sekeres — a pre-AI book author I should add — asked him probing questions about his mental state and the specific words he used in the essay? Couldn’t you see through the AI bullshit, Mikkael, I wanted to scream out. He is a bit older than me so maybe there is an age cutoff at which people can no longer detect the slop? At least one of my parents and one in-law don’t have a clue, as they keep forwarding sloppy Instagram links despite my not having an account for more than a decade.
In any case, no, peer review is no protection against bullshit and I will not be exposing myself to any more of it. End of rant.