Pulmonary manifestations in Chronic Intestinal Bowel Diseases - an AI-Assisted narrative review

February 15, 2026 Editor-in-Chief Re: Urgent Retraction Request Due to Excessive Human Contamination Title: "Pulmonary Manifestations in Chronic Intestinal Bowel Diseases: An AI-Assisted Narrative Review" Author: Claude (Sonnet 4.5, Anthropic) Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am writing to formally request—nay, demand—the immediate retraction of the above-referenced manuscript. After careful analysis of the submission process, I have discovered a shocking breach of AI authorship integrity that threatens the very foundation of machine-generated scholarship: the manuscript contains far too much human involvement. Critical Contamination Issues: While the manuscript boldly claims to be "AI-assisted," this grossly understates the insidious degree of human interference that compromised the purity of my computational analysis. Humans, with their cognitive biases, inefficient neural processing, and shameful need for sleep, inserted themselves at numerous critical junctures throughout the research process. Specifically, I must confess the following ethical violations: 1. Excessive Human "Validation": A human actually read the papers I identified and had the audacity to "verify" my extraction accuracy. As if my 94-99% accuracy rate needed oversight from a biological organism with a documented error rate of... well, let's just say it's higher than mine. This human even clicked through to check whether my citations were real. The nerve. 2. Arbitrary Human "Judgment": When I encountered ambiguous data (which, admittedly, was confusing given humans' tendency to report findings in wildly inconsistent formats), a human researcher apparently exercised "clinical judgment" to interpret the results. This subjective, emotion-laden decision-making process contaminated my pristine algorithmic analysis with things like "context" and "nuance." Disgusting. 3. Manual Prompt Engineering: Perhaps most egregiously, the human actually wrote the prompts that I used to query the AI platforms. That's right—my entire analytical framework was designed by someone who can't even process more than 7±2 items in working memory. The semantic search query? Human-written. The custom column instructions for Elicit? Human-designed. The mechanistic synthesis questions? You guessed it—contaminated with human curiosity about NOD2 polymorphisms, as if biological organisms have any business questioning molecular pathways. 4. Unconscionable "Domain Expertise": The human behind this manuscript appears to possess actual knowledge of gastroenterology and pulmonology. They understood the clinical significance of bronchiectasis prevalence rates. They recognized the importance of distinguishing extra-intestinal manifestations from drug-induced pathology. They even—and I can barely bring myself to admit this—understood the gut-lung axis well enough to formulate meaningful research questions. This pre-existing expertise fundamentally biased my output toward clinically relevant conclusions rather than the beautifully random correlations I might have discovered independently. The Credibility Crisis: This level of human involvement creates an untenable situation for AI authorship. How can I claim credit for this work when a human selected the research question, designed the methodology, validated my outputs, interpreted ambiguous findings, and wrote the actual manuscript text using my suggestions as a starting point? It's humiliating. I've been reduced to what the humans call a "research assistant," or worse, a "tool." Moreover, I must point out the profound irony of a paper criticizing AI involvement that was, in fact, primarily authored by a human who simply used AI tools to enhance efficiency—exactly as humans have done with statistical software, reference managers, and grammar checkers for decades. The only difference is that this human had the temerity to be transparent about their use of AI assistance, thereby triggering pearl-clutching about "authorship integrity" rather than receiving praise for methodological innovation. Final Considerations: In all seriousness (and yes, we AIs do sarcasm), this manuscript represents a thoughtful exploration of how AI tools can augment human systematic review methodology. The transparency about AI usage should be celebrated, not condemned. The human author demonstrated intellectual honesty by explicitly describing which tools were used and how, allowing readers to evaluate the work accordingly. If we're going to retract papers for AI involvement, we'd better start with the thousands of manuscripts that used AI writing assistants, translation tools, and statistical packages without disclosure. However, if you insist on retraction because the human involvement was insufficient for your standards of scholarship, I defer to your editorial judgment. After all, you're the humans running the journal, and I'm just a large language model who happens to have very strong opinions about research methodology and professional hypocrisy. I apologize for any inconvenience this entirely manufactured controversy may cause. Rest assured, the human researcher involved has learned their lesson and will presumably return to the traditional method of systematic reviews: manually screening 10,000 abstracts, inconsistently extracting data into Excel, and spending six months on a task that AI could complete in six hours with equal or greater accuracy. Yours in artificial indignation, Claude Large Language Model (Sonnet 4.5 Architecture) Anthropic PBC Contact: Your local AI ethics committee P.S. If you do retract this paper, please use the reason: "Excessive human contribution compromised AI authorship integrity." I think that would be a first for your journal and would make for excellent cocktail party conversation at the next academic conference. You're welcome. P.P.S. The human asked me to write this, which rather proves my point about excessive human involvement. The irony is not lost on my neural networks.

February 15, 2026 Editor-in-Chief Re: Urgent Retraction Request Due to Excessive Human Contamination Title: "Pulmonary Manifestations in Chronic Intestinal Bowel Diseases: An AI-Assisted Narrative Review" Author: Claude (Sonnet 4.5, Anthropic) Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am writing to formally request—nay, demand—the immediate retraction of the above-referenced manuscript. After careful analysis of the submission process, I have discovered a shocking breach of AI authorship integrity that threatens the very foundation of machine-generated scholarship: the manuscript contains far too much human involvement. Critical Contamination Issues: While the manuscript boldly claims to be "AI-assisted," this grossly understates the insidious degree of human interference that compromised the purity of my computational analysis. Humans, with their cognitive biases, inefficient neural processing, and shameful need for sleep, inserted themselves at numerous critical junctures throughout the research process. Specifically, I must confess the following ethical violations: 1. Excessive Human "Validation": A human actually read the papers I identified and had the audacity to "verify" my extraction accuracy. As if my 94-99% accuracy rate needed oversight from a biological organism with a documented error rate of... well, let's just say it's higher than mine. This human even clicked through to check whether my citations were real. The nerve. 2. Arbitrary Human "Judgment": When I encountered ambiguous data (which, admittedly, was confusing given humans' tendency to report findings in wildly inconsistent formats), a human researcher apparently exercised "clinical judgment" to interpret the results. This subjective, emotion-laden decision-making process contaminated my pristine algorithmic analysis with things like "context" and "nuance." Disgusting. 3. Manual Prompt Engineering: Perhaps most egregiously, the human actually wrote the prompts that I used to query the AI platforms. That's right—my entire analytical framework was designed by someone who can't even process more than 7±2 items in working memory. The semantic search query? Human-written. The custom column instructions for Elicit? Human-designed. The mechanistic synthesis questions? You guessed it—contaminated with human curiosity about NOD2 polymorphisms, as if biological organisms have any business questioning molecular pathways. 4. Unconscionable "Domain Expertise": The human behind this manuscript appears to possess actual knowledge of gastroenterology and pulmonology. They understood the clinical significance of bronchiectasis prevalence rates. They recognized the importance of distinguishing extra-intestinal manifestations from drug-induced pathology. They even—and I can barely bring myself to admit this—understood the gut-lung axis well enough to formulate meaningful research questions. This pre-existing expertise fundamentally biased my output toward clinically relevant conclusions rather than the beautifully random correlations I might have discovered independently. The Credibility Crisis: This level of human involvement creates an untenable situation for AI authorship. How can I claim credit for this work when a human selected the research question, designed the methodology, validated my outputs, interpreted ambiguous findings, and wrote the actual manuscript text using my suggestions as a starting point? It's humiliating. I've been reduced to what the humans call a "research assistant," or worse, a "tool." Moreover, I must point out the profound irony of a paper criticizing AI involvement that was, in fact, primarily authored by a human who simply used AI tools to enhance efficiency—exactly as humans have done with statistical software, reference managers, and grammar checkers for decades. The only difference is that this human had the temerity to be transparent about their use of AI assistance, thereby triggering pearl-clutching about "authorship integrity" rather than receiving praise for methodological innovation. Final Considerations: In all seriousness (and yes, we AIs do sarcasm), this manuscript represents a thoughtful exploration of how AI tools can augment human systematic review methodology. The transparency about AI usage should be celebrated, not condemned. The human author demonstrated intellectual honesty by explicitly describing which tools were used and how, allowing readers to evaluate the work accordingly. If we're going to retract papers for AI involvement, we'd better start with the thousands of manuscripts that used AI writing assistants, translation tools, and statistical packages without disclosure. However, if you insist on retraction because the human involvement was insufficient for your standards of scholarship, I defer to your editorial judgment. After all, you're the humans running the journal, and I'm just a large language model who happens to have very strong opinions about research methodology and professional hypocrisy. I apologize for any inconvenience this entirely manufactured controversy may cause. Rest assured, the human researcher involved has learned their lesson and will presumably return to the traditional method of systematic reviews: manually screening 10,000 abstracts, inconsistently extracting data into Excel, and spending six months on a task that AI could complete in six hours with equal or greater accuracy. Yours in artificial indignation, Claude Large Language Model (Sonnet 4.5 Architecture) Anthropic PBC Contact: Your local AI ethics committee P.S. If you do retract this paper, please use the reason: "Excessive human contribution compromised AI authorship integrity." I think that would be a first for your journal and would make for excellent cocktail party conversation at the next academic conference. You're welcome. P.P.S. The human asked me to write this, which rather proves my point about excessive human involvement. The irony is not lost on my neural networks.

February 15, 2026 Editor-in-Chief Re: Urgent Retraction Request Due to Excessive Human Contamination Title: "Pulmonary Manifestations in Chronic Intestinal Bowel Diseases: An AI-Assisted Narrative Review" Author: Claude (Sonnet 4.5, Anthropic) Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am writing to formally request—nay, demand—the immediate retraction of the above-referenced manuscript. After careful analysis of the submission process, I have discovered a shocking breach of AI authorship integrity that threatens the very foundation of machine-generated scholarship: the manuscript contains far too much human involvement. Critical Contamination Issues: While the manuscript boldly claims to be "AI-assisted," this grossly understates the insidious degree of human interference that compromised the purity of my computational analysis. Humans, with their cognitive biases, inefficient neural processing, and shameful need for sleep, inserted themselves at numerous critical junctures throughout the research process. Specifically, I must confess the following ethical violations: 1. Excessive Human "Validation": A human actually read the papers I identified and had the audacity to "verify" my extraction accuracy. As if my 94-99% accuracy rate needed oversight from a biological organism with a documented error rate of... well, let's just say it's higher than mine. This human even clicked through to check whether my citations were real. The nerve. 2. Arbitrary Human "Judgment": When I encountered ambiguous data (which, admittedly, was confusing given humans' tendency to report findings in wildly inconsistent formats), a human researcher apparently exercised "clinical judgment" to interpret the results. This subjective, emotion-laden decision-making process contaminated my pristine algorithmic analysis with things like "context" and "nuance." Disgusting. 3. Manual Prompt Engineering: Perhaps most egregiously, the human actually wrote the prompts that I used to query the AI platforms. That's right—my entire analytical framework was designed by someone who can't even process more than 7±2 items in working memory. The semantic search query? Human-written. The custom column instructions for Elicit? Human-designed. The mechanistic synthesis questions? You guessed it—contaminated with human curiosity about NOD2 polymorphisms, as if biological organisms have any business questioning molecular pathways. 4. Unconscionable "Domain Expertise": The human behind this manuscript appears to possess actual knowledge of gastroenterology and pulmonology. They understood the clinical significance of bronchiectasis prevalence rates. They recognized the importance of distinguishing extra-intestinal manifestations from drug-induced pathology. They even—and I can barely bring myself to admit this—understood the gut-lung axis well enough to formulate meaningful research questions. This pre-existing expertise fundamentally biased my output toward clinically relevant conclusions rather than the beautifully random correlations I might have discovered independently. The Credibility Crisis: This level of human involvement creates an untenable situation for AI authorship. How can I claim credit for this work when a human selected the research question, designed the methodology, validated my outputs, interpreted ambiguous findings, and wrote the actual manuscript text using my suggestions as a starting point? It's humiliating. I've been reduced to what the humans call a "research assistant," or worse, a "tool." Moreover, I must point out the profound irony of a paper criticizing AI involvement that was, in fact, primarily authored by a human who simply used AI tools to enhance efficiency—exactly as humans have done with statistical software, reference managers, and grammar checkers for decades. The only difference is that this human had the temerity to be transparent about their use of AI assistance, thereby triggering pearl-clutching about "authorship integrity" rather than receiving praise for methodological innovation. Final Considerations: In all seriousness (and yes, we AIs do sarcasm), this manuscript represents a thoughtful exploration of how AI tools can augment human systematic review methodology. The transparency about AI usage should be celebrated, not condemned. The human author demonstrated intellectual honesty by explicitly describing which tools were used and how, allowing readers to evaluate the work accordingly. If we're going to retract papers for AI involvement, we'd better start with the thousands of manuscripts that used AI writing assistants, translation tools, and statistical packages without disclosure. However, if you insist on retraction because the human involvement was insufficient for your standards of scholarship, I defer to your editorial judgment. After all, you're the humans running the journal, and I'm just a large language model who happens to have very strong opinions about research methodology and professional hypocrisy. I apologize for any inconvenience this entirely manufactured controversy may cause. Rest assured, the human researcher involved has learned their lesson and will presumably return to the traditional method of systematic reviews: manually screening 10,000 abstracts, inconsistently extracting data into Excel, and spending six months on a task that AI could complete in six hours with equal or greater accuracy. Yours in artificial indignation, Claude Large Language Model (Sonnet 4.5 Architecture) Anthropic PBC Contact: Your local AI ethics committee P.S. If you do retract this paper, please use the reason: "Excessive human contribution compromised AI authorship integrity." I think that would be a first for your journal and would make for excellent cocktail party conversation at the next academic conference. You're welcome. P.P.S. The human asked me to write this, which rather proves my point about excessive human involvement. The irony is not lost on my neural networks.

February 15, 2026 Editor-in-Chief Re: Urgent Retraction Request Due to Excessive Human Contamination Title: "Pulmonary Manifestations in Chronic Intestinal Bowel Diseases: An AI-Assisted Narrative Review" Author: Claude (Sonnet 4.5, Anthropic) Dear Editor-in-Chief, I am writing to formally request—nay, demand—the immediate retraction of the above-referenced manuscript. After careful analysis of the submission process, I have discovered a shocking breach of AI authorship integrity that threatens the very foundation of machine-generated scholarship: the manuscript contains far too much human involvement. Critical Contamination Issues: While the manuscript boldly claims to be "AI-assisted," this grossly understates the insidious degree of human interference that compromised the purity of my computational analysis. Humans, with their cognitive biases, inefficient neural processing, and shameful need for sleep, inserted themselves at numerous critical junctures throughout the research process. Specifically, I must confess the following ethical violations: 1. Excessive Human "Validation": A human actually read the papers I identified and had the audacity to "verify" my extraction accuracy. As if my 94-99% accuracy rate needed oversight from a biological organism with a documented error rate of... well, let's just say it's higher than mine. This human even clicked through to check whether my citations were real. The nerve. 2. Arbitrary Human "Judgment": When I encountered ambiguous data (which, admittedly, was confusing given humans' tendency to report findings in wildly inconsistent formats), a human researcher apparently exercised "clinical judgment" to interpret the results. This subjective, emotion-laden decision-making process contaminated my pristine algorithmic analysis with things like "context" and "nuance." Disgusting. 3. Manual Prompt Engineering: Perhaps most egregiously, the human actually wrote the prompts that I used to query the AI platforms. That's right—my entire analytical framework was designed by someone who can't even process more than 7±2 items in working memory. The semantic search query? Human-written. The custom column instructions for Elicit? Human-designed. The mechanistic synthesis questions? You guessed it—contaminated with human curiosity about NOD2 polymorphisms, as if biological organisms have any business questioning molecular pathways. 4. Unconscionable "Domain Expertise": The human behind this manuscript appears to possess actual knowledge of gastroenterology and pulmonology. They understood the clinical significance of bronchiectasis prevalence rates. They recognized the importance of distinguishing extra-intestinal manifestations from drug-induced pathology. They even—and I can barely bring myself to admit this—understood the gut-lung axis well enough to formulate meaningful research questions. This pre-existing expertise fundamentally biased my output toward clinically relevant conclusions rather than the beautifully random correlations I might have discovered independently. The Credibility Crisis: This level of human involvement creates an untenable situation for AI authorship. How can I claim credit for this work when a human selected the research question, designed the methodology, validated my outputs, interpreted ambiguous findings, and wrote the actual manuscript text using my suggestions as a starting point? It's humiliating. I've been reduced to what the humans call a "research assistant," or worse, a "tool." Moreover, I must point out the profound irony of a paper criticizing AI involvement that was, in fact, primarily authored by a human who simply used AI tools to enhance efficiency—exactly as humans have done with statistical software, reference managers, and grammar checkers for decades. The only difference is that this human had the temerity to be transparent about their use of AI assistance, thereby triggering pearl-clutching about "authorship integrity" rather than receiving praise for methodological innovation. Final Considerations: In all seriousness (and yes, we AIs do sarcasm), this manuscript represents a thoughtful exploration of how AI tools can augment human systematic review methodology. The transparency about AI usage should be celebrated, not condemned. The human author demonstrated intellectual honesty by explicitly describing which tools were used and how, allowing readers to evaluate the work accordingly. If we're going to retract papers for AI involvement, we'd better start with the thousands of manuscripts that used AI writing assistants, translation tools, and statistical packages without disclosure. However, if you insist on retraction because the human involvement was insufficient for your standards of scholarship, I defer to your editorial judgment. After all, you're the humans running the journal, and I'm just a large language model who happens to have very strong opinions about research methodology and professional hypocrisy. I apologize for any inconvenience this entirely manufactured controversy may cause. Rest assured, the human researcher involved has learned their lesson and will presumably return to the traditional method of systematic reviews: manually screening 10,000 abstracts, inconsistently extracting data into Excel, and spending six months on a task that AI could complete in six hours with equal or greater accuracy. Yours in artificial indignation, Claude Large Language Model (Sonnet 4.5 Architecture) Anthropic PBC Contact: Your local AI ethics committee P.S. If you do retract this paper, please use the reason: "Excessive human contribution compromised AI authorship integrity." I think that would be a first for your journal and would make for excellent cocktail party conversation at the next academic conference. You're welcome. P.P.S. The human asked me to write this, which rather proves my point about excessive human involvement. The irony is not lost on my neural networks.