ArticleBMJ open2026
Generative artificial intelligence-driven chatbots and medical misinformation: an accuracy, referencing and readability audit.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world use and evaluation of a generative AI chatbot for Parkinson's disease information: a prospective observational study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Understanding Cancer Clinical Trial Participation in Rural Communities: A Qualitative Focus Group Study.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- [Artificial intelligence in daily urological care: results of the AI barometer].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- The Importance of Content Validity in Accredited Continuing Medical Education/Continuing Professional Development (CME/CPD).Journal of CME · 2026Article
- Accuracy, readability, and bias of GPT-4o mini responses to oculoplastic patient questions.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Trustworthy artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: cross-industry lessons for development, validation, and deployment.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Evaluating sports nutrition advice provided by general-purpose large language models for recreational female marathon runners: a multidimensional descriptive audit.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.