ArticleScientific reports2025
A hallucination detection and mitigation framework for faithful text summarization using LLMs.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly propelled the field of automatic text summarization. Nevertheless, the domain continues to face substantial challenges, particularly the issue of hallucination where summaries contain information not present in the source text. Such problems not only compromise the factual accuracy of summaries but also lead to diminished user satisfaction. Existing methods exhibit limitations in effectively detecting and mitigating hallucinations, often lacking transparency in their underlying mechanisms. This paper introduces a hallucination detection and mitigation framework that employs a Question-Answer Generation, Sorting, and Evaluation (Q-S-E) methodology to enable the quantitative detection of hallucinations in summaries. Leveraging LLMs, the framework incorporates an iterative hallucination resolution mechanism, which enhances the transparency of the modification process and improves the faithfulness of text summarization. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets CNN/Daily Mail, PubMed, and ArXiv demonstrate that our approach markedly improves the factual consistency of summaries while preserving their informational completeness.
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.