Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40691231›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Examining embedded lies through computational text analysis.

Riccardo Loconte, Bennett Kleinberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Riccardo LoconteMolecular Mind Lab, IMT School of Advanced Studies Lucca, Lucca, Italy. riccardo.loconte@imtlucca.it.
Bennett KleinbergDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Verbal deception detection research relies on narratives and commonly assumes statements as truthful or deceptive. A more realistic perspective acknowledges that the veracity of statements exists on a continuum, with truthful and deceptive parts being embedded within the same statement. However, research on embedded lies has been lagging behind. We collected a novel dataset of 2,088 truthful and deceptive statements with annotated embedded lies. Using a counterbalanced within-subjects design, participants provided two versions of an autobiographical event. One was described truthfully, and the other one deceptively by including embedded lies. Participants later highlighted those embedded lies and judged them on lie centrality, deceptiveness, and source. We show that a fine-tuned language model (Llama-3-8B) can classify truthful statements and those containing embedded lies significantly above the chance level (64% accuracy). Individual differences, linguistic properties, and explainability analysis suggest that the challenge of moving the dial towards embedded lies stems from their resemblance to truthful statements. Typical deceptive statements consisted of 2/3 truthful information and 1/3 embedded lies, largely derived from past personal experiences and with minimal linguistic differences from their truthful counterparts. We present this dataset as a novel resource to address this challenge and foster research on embedded lies in verbal deception detection.

Indexed as

DeceptionEmbedded liesIndividual differencesLying profileNatural Language processing

Identifiers

PMID40691231
PMCPMC12280142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.