ArticlePsychiatry research2024
Evaluating generative AI responses to real-world drug-related questions.
Article in Psychiatry research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Application and Ethical Implication of Generative AI in Mental Health: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Harm Reduction Advice From Large Language Models.Drug and alcohol review · 2026Article
- Evaluating the safety of large language models in healthcare and dentistry: adversarial testing approaches.BDJ open · 2026Review
- Opportunities and risks of large language models in digital interventions for substance use disorders.Current opinion in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Assessing Generative AI Chatbots for Alcohol Misuse Support: A Longitudinal Simulation Study.NEJM AI · 2026Article
- ChatGPT Clinical Use in Mental Health Care: Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Editorial: 8th biennial international drug and alcohol research society conference 2022.Advances in drug and alcohol research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, capable of an unprecedented ability to generate human-like text and converse in real time, hold potential for large-scale deployment in clinical settings such as substance use treatment. Treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) is particularly high stakes, requiring evidence-based clinical treatment, mental health expertise, and peer support. Thus, promises of AI systems addressing deficient healthcare resources and structural bias are relevant within this domain, especially in an anonymous setting. This study explores the effectiveness of generative AI in answering real-world substance use and recovery questions. We collect questions from online recovery forums, use ChatGPT and Meta's LLaMA-2 for responses, and have SUD clinicians rate these AI responses. While clinicians rated the AI-generated responses as high quality, we discovered instances of dangerous disinformation, including disregard for suicidal ideation, incorrect emergency helplines, and endorsement of home detox. Moreover, the AI systems produced inconsistent advice depending on question phrasing. These findings indicate a risky mix of seemingly high-quality, accurate responses upon initial inspection that contain inaccurate and potentially deadly medical advice. Consequently, while generative AI shows promise, its real-world application in sensitive healthcare domains necessitates further safeguards and clinical validation.
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.