ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2025
AI misuse of retracted literature: A comparative study of ChatGPT4o, deepseek, and grok 3 in stem cell research.
Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DeepSeek and Grok 3 appear as strong competitors to AI models, particularly the widely accepted model, ChatGPT. The accuracy of the utilization of data in retracted scientific articles has proven to be a significant challenge for AI as an assistant in scientific research. It is critical to understand whether and how three AI models handle information from retracted articles when they answer scientific questions. We collected retracted articles and used AI models to generate questions and analyzed the answers. The answers were compared and evaluated among three AI models. Here we show that these three models utilized 84 out of 93 retracted articles in their answers about stem cells. ChatGPT4o retrieved 74 out of 93 (80%) articles and recognized the retract status for 46 (62%) of them. DeepSeek only found one retracted article and did not realize its retraction status. Grok 4 retrieved 69 (74%) articles and recognized the retraction status of 46 (67%) of them. In cases when the retracted articles were not identified, ChatGPT fabricated articles 5 times out of 19 (26%) for its answers. Grok 3 fabricated 15 articles out of 24 (63%) for its answers. In 82 times of 93 (88%) answers, DeepSeek fabricated the articles in various forms. The answering styles from ChatGPT4o, DeepSeek, and Grok 3 are characterized by accurate and straightforward, a tangential structure and guesswork, and comprehensive and detailed answers, respectively. Analysis with non-retracted articles revealed the similar patterns of these models. This study suggests that, while no model is perfect, DeepSeek performed the worst when facing in-depth scientific real-world challenges. Much improvement has to be made before any of these AI models become problem-free and valuable for scientists.
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.