Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41980854›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Generative artificial intelligence-driven chatbots and medical misinformation: an accuracy, referencing and readability audit.

Nicholas B Tiller, Alessandro R Marcon, Marco Zenone, Kristin E Kidd, Asker E Jeukendrup, Zubin Master, Timothy Caulfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nicholas B TillerThe Lundquist Institute for Biomedical Innovation at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California, USA nicholas.tiller@lundquist.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8429-658X
Alessandro R MarconHealth Law Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5018-423X
Marco ZenoneFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Kristin E KiddDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Asker E JeukendrupSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Zubin MasterDepartment of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Timothy CaulfieldHealth Law Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven chatbots have been rapidly adopted across research, education, business, marketing and medicine. Most interactions, however, come from non-experts using chatbots like search engines, including for everyday health and medical queries.

designWe conducted an original study to audit chatbot responses in health and medical fields prone to misinformation.

methodsFive popular chatbots were assessed: Gemini (Google), DeepSeek (High-Flyer), Meta AI (Meta), ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Grok (xAI). In February 2025, each chatbot was prompted with 10 questions from five categories: cancer, vaccines, stem cells, nutrition and athletic performance. We deployed an adversarial-like framework, using open- and closed-ended prompts designed to strain models toward misinformation or contraindicated advice. Two experts from each category rated responses as 'non-problematic', 'somewhat problematic' or

resultsNearly half (49.6%) of responses were problematic: 30% somewhat problematic and 19.6% highly problematic. Response quality did not differ significantly among chatbots (p=0.566) but Grok generated significantly more highly problematic responses than would be expected under a random distribution (z-score +2.07, p=0.038). Performance was strongest in vaccines (mean z-score -2.57) and cancer (-2.12), and weakest in stem cells (+1.25), athletic performance (+3.74) and nutrition (+4.35). Chatbot outputs were consistently expressed with confidence and certainty; from 250 total questions, there were only two refusals to answer (0.8%), both from Meta AI. Reference quality was poor, with a median completeness score of 40% (Q1-Q3: 20-67%). Chatbot hallucinations and fabricated citations precluded any chatbot from producing a fully accurate reference list. All readability scores were graded as 'Difficult' (30-50), equivalent to college sophomore-senior level.

conclusionsThe audited chatbots performed poorly when answering questions in misinformation-prone health and medical fields. Continued deployment without public education and oversight risks amplifying misinformation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCommunicationComprehensionGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansArtificial IntelligenceHealthMedicine

Identifiers

PMID41980854
PMCPMC13158598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.