Reference (passed peer review btw):

Muhammad Salman Hameed, Hongxuan Cao, Li Guo, Lei Zeng, Yanliang Ren, Advancements, challenges, and future frontiers in covalent inhibitors and covalent drugs: A review, European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Reports, Volume 12, 2024, 100217, ISSN 2772-4174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmcr.2024.100217

Try this link if the above doesn’t work (not that it’s worth visiting in the first place…): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277241742400089X?via%3Dihub

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    What’s up with this AI generated garbage? This post isn’t even half a day old and the article is already down.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      413 hours ago

      Its still there but the links goed trough like 3 proxys and sometimes fails.

      Also new theory: auto generate ai slop on official platforms like science research to auto share those on social media as rage bait to then auto sell the “active” account in the furure.

      It doesn’t need to be economically feasibly to be sure some people are trying something like it.

  • @rational_lib
    link
    English
    1314 hours ago

    “I have lung cancer? How bad is it?”
    “Well let’s just say it’s…non-small lung cancer.”

    • @dingus
      link
      English
      613 hours ago

      Actually that part is a legitimate classification and not part of the AI nonsense. Broadly, lung cancers are classified as either “small cell” cancers or “non small cell” cancers based on how the tumor appears microscopically. The “non small cell” cancers can be further subdivided into various types.

      The reason for this distinction between the two is due to the significant difference in clinical management and prognosis. Having “small cell” lung cancer is effectively a death sentence, whereas the other types are a lot more treatable.

  • @Agent641
    link
    English
    1618 hours ago

    Where is Saddam?

  • Hardened Shell
    link
    fedilink
    English
    761 day ago

    That image was generated by AI and edited over. They didn’t even bother correcting all of it or erasing the parts that didn’t make sense.

    Ffs, this is blatant.

      • @iAvicenna
        link
        English
        311 hours ago

        what peer review? This is likely one of the many reviewless journals that solely exist to publish, for a generous fee, shit that wouldn’t even pass as an undergrad homework. people then can write in their CVs for grant applications or position applications in low tier universities etc The name of the journal is usually chosen to look fancy and very international so it looks good on your CV. Honestly there are so many such journals now, no one person would be able to tell which is which, it’s a complete mess. Humans find a way of fucking up everything for profit.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        271 day ago

        Not even peer review, the problem doesn’t go far enough to reach the level of checking the scientific methodology. Did nobody even read the article before publishing? They don’t have editors in the journal this was published in?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    719 hours ago

    Turn around, bright eyes.

    EGFR and AFATINIB

    And I need you now tonight.

    And I need you more than ever.

    • @RizzRustbolt
      link
      English
      151 day ago

      Maybe c/FuckCars is on to something.

    • Ignotum
      link
      English
      523 hours ago

      Small cars are fine, it’s the non-small ones that are cancerous