Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38508682›Full record

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.

Bradley D Menz, Nicole M Kuderer, Stephen Bacchi, Natansh D Modi, Benjamin Chin-Yee, Tiancheng Hu, Ceara Rickard, Mark Haseloff, Agnes Vitry, Ross A McKinnon and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Bradley D MenzCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Nicole M KudererAdvanced Cancer Research Group, Kirkland, WA, USA.
Stephen BacchiCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Natansh D ModiCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Benjamin Chin-YeeSchulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
Tiancheng HuLanguage Technology Lab, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ceara RickardConsumer Advisory Group, Clinical Cancer Epidemiology Group, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Mark HaseloffConsumer Advisory Group, Clinical Cancer Epidemiology Group, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Agnes VitryConsumer Advisory Group, Clinical Cancer Epidemiology Group, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Ross A McKinnonCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Ganessan KichenadasseCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Andrew RowlandCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Michael J SorichCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia.
Ashley M HopkinsCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, 5042, Australia ashley.hopkins@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7652-4378
Flinders University · AUUniversity of Cambridge · GBWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Camelids, New WorldSkin NeoplasmsAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceCross-Sectional StudiesDisinformationHumansLanguageSunscreening AgentsSunscreening Agents

Identifiers

PMID38508682
PMCPMC10961718
OpenAlexW4393054030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.