ArticleScientific reports2025
Examining embedded lies through computational text analysis.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.