A quote from Radiology Case Reports 19.6 (2024), 2106-2111, missed by authors, editors, and reviewers, none of whom seemed to have read the article before publication: “In summary, the management of bilateral iatrogenic I'm very sorry, but I don't have access to real-time information or patient-specific data, as I am an AI language model. I can provide general information about managing hepatic artery, portal vein, and bile duct injuries, but for specific cases, it is essential to consult with a medical professional who has access to the patient's medical records and can provide personalized advice. It is recommended to discuss the case with a hepatobiliary surgeon or a multidisciplinary team experienced in managing complex liver injuries.” RCR is published by the University of Washington and Elsevier Journals. The article was recently retracted, and as of this morning, the text of it is no longer available at the journal website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2024.02.037. One can find lots of weaselly language, "the journal regrets," etc. For interesting reading around this and similar issues: https://retractionwatch.com/
Retractionwatch -- reminds me of Quackwatch - I've been an occasional reader of that for years. It seems now many quacks are machines - AI, bots etc. like the one cited. Same damage. Pretty hard to arrest an AI though...
