ArticleScientific reports2026
AI-supported real-time news evaluation reveals effects of time constraint on misinformation discernment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates how people perceive and evaluate true and false news in their natural environment using a novel experience sampling methodology with real-time news streaming. The sample consisted of 110 participants who evaluated news headlines on their smartphones throughout the day for two weeks, receiving notifications when new content was published. The study employed a custom-developed server that captured RSS feeds from major news outlets. The server used AI (the Open AI "gpt-4-0125-preview" model) to generate modified versions of news stories on the fly, including misinformation variants. Participants evaluated news live under experimentally manipulated conditions that included time constraints for reading the news. They also provided information about their environmental context and individual characteristics. The results showed that false news items were generally rated as less accurate than true news, but this discernment decreased under time constraint. Higher digital literacy and greater satisfaction with the political system were associated with rating false news as less accurate, whereas higher dogmatism was linked to higher perceived accuracy of false news. Familiarity was also related to higher accuracy ratings for both true and false news, meaning participants rated both types of news as more accurate when they felt familiar with it, consistent with the illusory truth effect. Integrating experimental AI-guided, real-time news generation and streaming offers a novel and much-needed approach to studying misinformation perception, providing externally valid insights into how real-world factors influence people's ability to detect and respond to false information in their daily lives.
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.