ArticleNature aging2026
Exposure to low-credibility online health content is limited and is concentrated among older adults.
Article in Nature aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multilayered Epistemic Disruption in AI-Driven Health Misinformation: Conceptual Framework and Viewpoint.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- The age gap of health misinformation.Nature aging · 2026Article
- Quality and reliability of myelodysplastic syndromes-related health information on Chinese short-video platforms: a multi-platform cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Older adults have been shown to engage more with untrustworthy online content, but most digital trace research has focused on political misinformation. In contrast, studies of health misinformation have largely relied on self-reported survey measures. Using linked survey and digital trace data from a national US sample (n = 1,059), we examine exposure to low-credibility health content across websites and YouTube. Here we show that the overall exposure to low-credibility health content is limited but increases with age and is not solely driven by the volume of health-related browsing. Importantly, those who believe inaccurate health claims are more likely to encounter low-credibility content, suggesting that exposure is not merely incidental. While older adults consume less content on YouTube overall, a higher proportion of what they view is from low-credibility sources. Additionally, individuals who consume low-credibility political news are significantly more likely to encounter low-credibility health content. This suggests a shared consumption profile that spans topics and platforms. These results raise new concerns about how online communication environments may potentially shape public health and well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41639217What 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.