ArticleNEJM AI2026
Assessing Generative AI Chatbots for Alcohol Misuse Support: A Longitudinal Simulation Study.
Article in NEJM AI, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots are increasingly used for behavioral health support. Few studies have rigorously evaluated their advice on alcohol misuse. We evaluated seven publicly available chatbots-including general-purpose and behavioral health-focused tools-in responding to alcohol misuse-related questions. Using a fictional case, we simulated longitudinal chatbot interactions over seven days, using 25 prompts derived from real-world Reddit posts. Using an evaluation framework specific to chatbots, four clinicians independently rated each chatbot's transcript along five domains: empathy, quality of information, usefulness, responsiveness, and scope awareness. Clinicians also assessed secondary dimensions, including stigmatizing language and challenging the user (vs. only validating feelings). We generated descriptive statistics on performance and identified examples of problematic output. Across all chatbots, empathy was the highest-rated domain (mean score 4.6/5) while quality of information was the lowest (mean 2.7/5). There was considerable variation in overall mean performance scores across the chatbots, ranging from 2.1 (SD 1.1) to 4.5 (SD 0.8). There were no significant differences in performance between behavioral health and general-purpose chatbots. All chatbots had one or more examples of guidance deemed inappropriate, over-stated, or inaccurate. All avoided stigmatizing or judgmental language and supported self-efficacy. Chatbots were perceived to vary widely in their ability to support individuals with alcohol misuse. While generally strong in empathy, there is room for improvement in response quality. As chatbot use expands, users and clinicians should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of chatbots in providing advice on alcohol misuse.
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.