SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Mitigating hallucinations in healthcare AI: a systematic review of evidence-based strategies.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence-assisted medical self-care and associated factors among undergraduate students at Arsi University, South-Eastern Ethiopia.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Generative AI and Large Language Models in Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare applications, but their tendency to generate hallucinations-factually incorrect yet plausible outputs-poses risks to safety and trust. In clinical settings, these failures include fabricated citations, incorrect treatment statements, and inaccurate summaries of patient context, each of which can propagate unsafe decisions.
methodsUsing the PRISMA systematic review guidelines, we reviewed empirical studies from January 2019 to April 2025 that evaluated hallucination mitigation strategies in LLM-based healthcare AI systems. We searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and arXiv using predefined terms. Eligible studies were assessed for methodological quality using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute checklist.
resultsOut of 427 retrieved studies, 44 met inclusion criteria. We identified seven main strategy categories: (1) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), (2) knowledge graph integration, (3) self-reflection frameworks, (4) specialized evaluation metrics, (5) human-in-the-loop (HITL) approaches, (6) specialized training techniques, and (7) red teaming. The most frequently evaluated strategies were RAG (18/44), knowledge graphs (12/44), and self-reflection or specialized training (10/44 each). RAG approaches demonstrated 30-50% reductions in hallucinations; HITL strategies achieved up to 95% reductions but posed scalability concerns; and red teaming identified novel vulnerabilities that other approaches missed, with interdisciplinary teams showing 20-40% improvements in hallucination detection. Combined approaches (e.g. retrieval plus verification) generally outperformed single-method controls.
conclusionsMitigating hallucinations in healthcare AI requires integrated approaches that combine technical and human-centered safeguards. We propose a typology of mitigation strategies, implementation considerations, and a replicable workflow to inform safer deployment in clinical settings.
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.