“It Looks Sexy but it's Wrong.” Tensions in Creativity and Accuracy using genAI for Biomedical Visualization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We contribute an in-depth analysis of the workflows and tensions arising from generative AI (genAI) use in biomedical visualization (BioMedVis). Although genAI affords facile production of aesthetic visuals for biological and medical content, the architecture of these tools fundamentally limits the accuracy and trustworthiness of the depicted information, from imaginary (or fanciful) molecules to alien anatomy. Through 17 interviews with a diverse group of practitioners and researchers, we qualitatively analyze the concerns and values driving genAI (dis)use for the visual representation of spatially-oriented biomedical data. We find that BioMedVis experts, both in roles as developers and designers, use genAI tools at different stages of their daily workflows and hold attitudes ranging from enthusiastic adopters to skeptical avoiders of genAI. In contrasting the current use and perspectives on genAI observed in our study with predictions towards genAI in the visualization pipeline from prior work, we refocus the discussion of genAI's effects on projects in visualization in the here and now with its respective opportunities and pitfalls for future visualization research. At a time when public trust in science is in jeopardy, we are reminded to first do no harm, not just in biomedical visualization but in science communication more broadly. Our observations reaffirm the necessity of human intervention for empathetic design and assessment of accurate scientific visuals. Supplemental study materials are available at https://osf.io/genaixbiomedvis/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".