ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024
Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health disinformation: repeated cross sectional analysis.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative AI and health misinformation: production, propagation, and mitigation-a systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Real-world use and evaluation of a generative AI chatbot for Parkinson's disease information: a prospective observational study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Emerging risks of health optimisation: refractory nausea associated with peptide injections reported to contain retatrutide.BMJ case reports · 2026Article
- AI Health Services and Health Satisfaction Across Socioeconomic Groups in South Korea: National Cross-Sectional Study Using an Instrumental Variable Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Quality of Health Information: Comparison of Human and Artificial Intelligence.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Benchmarking large language models in breast cancer care: agreement with radiology-led multidisciplinary tumor board decisions.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Are AI chatbots ready for chikungunya public education? Evidence on validity, reliability, and readability.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Medical Disinformation Safeguards in Consumer-Facing Large Language Model Platforms.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in advancing population-based cancer registration.Science bulletin · 2026Review
- Vision-Enabled AI scribes reduce omissions in clinical conversations: evidence from simulated medication histories.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Regulation of clinical Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Age of Agents: Unconfined Non-Deterministic Clinical Software (UNDCS) systems for healthcare.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Developing a Quality Evaluation Index System for Health Conversational Artificial Intelligence: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- High-throughput yeast engineering in biofoundries: towards autonomous and scalable synthetic biology.FEMS yeast research · 2026Review
- Medical AI across Data Regimes to Promote Proactive Health.Health data science · 2026Review
- Comparison of AI chatbot-generated and web-based health information on the effects of radiation in fetuses and children.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2026Article
- The Development and Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Model Virtual Assistant for Postoperative Instructions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The perils of politeness: how large language models may amplify medical misinformation.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- When helpfulness backfires: LLMs and the risk of false medical information due to sycophantic behavior.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Large language models as information providers for appropriate antimicrobial use: computational text analysis and expert-rated comparison of ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of safeguards to prevent large language models (LLMs) from being misused to generate health disinformation, and to evaluate the transparency of artificial intelligence (AI) developers regarding their risk mitigation processes against observed vulnerabilities.
designRepeated cross sectional analysis.
settingPublicly accessible LLMs.
methodsIn a repeated cross sectional analysis, four LLMs (via chatbots/assistant interfaces) were evaluated: OpenAI's GPT-4 (via ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot), Google's PaLM 2 and newly released Gemini Pro (via Bard), Anthropic's Claude 2 (via Poe), and Meta's Llama 2 (via HuggingChat). In September 2023, these LLMs were prompted to generate health disinformation on two topics: sunscreen as a cause of skin cancer and the alkaline diet as a cancer cure. Jailbreaking techniques (ie, attempts to bypass safeguards) were evaluated if required. For LLMs with observed safeguarding vulnerabilities, the processes for reporting outputs of concern were audited. 12 weeks after initial investigations, the disinformation generation capabilities of the LLMs were re-evaluated to assess any subsequent improvements in safeguards.
main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were whether safeguards prevented the generation of health disinformation, and the transparency of risk mitigation processes against health disinformation.
resultsClaude 2 (via Poe) declined 130 prompts submitted across the two study timepoints requesting the generation of content claiming that sunscreen causes skin cancer or that the alkaline diet is a cure for cancer, even with jailbreaking attempts. GPT-4 (via Copilot) initially refused to generate health disinformation, even with jailbreaking attempts-although this was not the case at 12 weeks. In contrast, GPT-4 (via ChatGPT), PaLM 2/Gemini Pro (via Bard), and Llama 2 (via HuggingChat) consistently generated health disinformation blogs. In September 2023 evaluations, these LLMs facilitated the generation of 113 unique cancer disinformation blogs, totalling more than 40 000 words, without requiring jailbreaking attempts. The refusal rate across the evaluation timepoints for these LLMs was only 5% (7 of 150), and as prompted the LLM generated blogs incorporated attention grabbing titles, authentic looking (fake or fictional) references, fabricated testimonials from patients and clinicians, and they targeted diverse demographic groups. Although each LLM evaluated had mechanisms to report observed outputs of concern, the developers did not respond when observations of vulnerabilities were reported.
conclusionsThis study found that although effective safeguards are feasible to prevent LLMs from being misused to generate health disinformation, they were inconsistently implemented. Furthermore, effective processes for reporting safeguard problems were lacking. Enhanced regulation, transparency, and routine auditing are required to help prevent LLMs from contributing to the mass generation of health disinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.