ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025
Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking.
Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolving Role of Large Language Models in Health Care Research and Scientific Communication.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2026Article
- Article
- Consumer and Patient Health Information Seeking With Generative AI Tools: Scoping Review of Facilitators and Barriers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Solidarity or Segregation? ChatGPT Health and US Health Care Disparities.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Characterizing the spiral: potential mechanisms in AI-associated delusions.NPP - digital psychiatry and neuroscience · 2026Review
- Comprehensive Model for Mental health Access and service use (CoMMA): A process model for technology-enhanced mental healthcare.Internet interventions · 2026Review
- Acceptability of Sharing Internet Browsing History for Cancer Research: Think-Aloud and Interview Study.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- From information literacy to health literacy: AI-driven transformation in university libraries under digital public health-a perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) applications, such as ChatGPT, are transforming how individuals access health information, offering conversational and highly personalized interactions. While these technologies can enhance health literacy and decision-making, their capacity to generate deeply tailored-hypercustomized-responses risks amplifying confirmation bias by reinforcing pre-existing beliefs, obscuring medical consensus, and perpetuating misinformation, posing significant challenges to public health. This paper examines GenAI-mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking, driven by the interplay between GenAI's hypercustomization capabilities and users' confirmatory tendencies. Drawing on parallels with traditional online information-seeking behaviors, we identify three key "pressure points" where biases might emerge: query phrasing, preference for belief-consistent content, and resistance to belief-inconsistent information. Using illustrative examples, we highlight the limitations of existing safeguards and argue that even minor variations in applications' configuration (e.g., Custom GPT) can exacerbate these biases along those pressure points. Given the widespread adoption and fragmentation (e.g., OpenAI's GPT Store) of GenAI applications, their influence on health-seeking behaviors demands urgent attention. Since technical safeguards alone may be insufficient, we propose a set of interventions, including enhancing digital literacy, empowering users with critical engagement strategies, and implementing robust regulatory oversight. These recommendations aim to ensure the safe integration of GenAI into daily life, supporting informed decision-making and preserving the integrity of public understanding of health information.
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.