ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
A reproducible statistical evaluation framework for large-sample assessment of AI-generated medical references: cross-platform application of the reference hallucination score.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
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
objectiveTo quantitatively evaluate the bibliographic reliability of AI-generated medical references across multiple chatbot platforms using the Reference Hallucination Score (RHS) and to examine the influence of output format on reference stability.
methodsIn this cross-sectional comparative study, three AI-based chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity) were prompted under 30 predefined medical subheadings in two output formats (letter and review article), generating 3,150 references. Reference reliability was assessed using the RHS, which evaluates presence/verifiability, bibliographic accuracy, PMID validity, and topic relevance. Due to non-normal distribution, data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. Effect sizes (η² and r) were calculated to distinguish statistical detectability from practical magnitude.
resultsSignificant inter-model differences were detected in total RHS scores (H(2) = 24.88, p < 0.001); however, the overall effect size was very small (η² = 0.007). Pairwise comparisons revealed statistically detectable differences between certain models, although effect sizes were consistently small (r = 0.02-0.20). Format-related differences were observed, with longer outputs demonstrating reduced bibliographic stability; however, these differences were numerically modest and partially attenuated after Bonferroni correction.
conclusionAI-based chatbots exhibit measurable bibliographic instability in reference generation, with statistically detectable but practically small differences between models. Beyond cross-platform comparison, this study proposes an instrument-agnostic statistical framework for large-sample evaluation of AI-generated reference reliability. Positioned within applied methodological research rather than AI benchmarking, the framework may serve as a template for future large-scale AI reliability studies. The proposed framework may contribute to methodological standardization in future evaluations of AI-generated scientific outputs.
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.