ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
"But it sounded confident": the role of accuracy, tone, and disclaimers in users' medical decision-making.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are increasingly used in healthcare for applications ranging from symptom triage to lifestyle guidance. Their effectiveness depends not only on their ability to provide reliable information but also on users engaging with their advice while remaining aware of potential inaccuracies. This study investigated how users perceive AI-generated medical advice, with a particular focus on the roles of accuracy, conversational tone, and disclaimers. Methods: A survey was conducted with 115 participants who evaluated 15 chatbot scenarios representing five common health problems. Participants assessed chatbot responses varying in accuracy, tone, and the presence of disclaimers. Associations between these factors, user trust, willingness to seek second opinions, and participant characteristics (including age, health literacy, and prior chatbot use) were examined. Results: Accuracy emerged as the strongest predictor of user trust, although participants did not consistently identify inaccurate advice. Individual characteristics, including age, health literacy, and prior chatbot experience, showed no significant associations with trust. Differences in chatbot tone had little influence on user perceptions, with chatbots generally being viewed as confident regardless of phrasing. The effects of disclaimers on willingness to seek second opinions were mixed and varied across scenarios, suggesting that disclaimers alone may not effectively prevent over-reliance on chatbot advice. Open-ended responses highlighted trust in healthcare professionals and the importance of clearly communicating AI limitations. Discussion: This exploratory study, based on self-reported intentions in hypothetical scenarios, suggests that the accuracy of AI-generated medical advice is the primary determinant of user trust. Conversational tone appears to have limited influence, while disclaimers may not consistently promote appropriate caution. These findings indicate that healthcare chatbots should prioritize accuracy, clearly communicate their limitations, and encourage critical evaluation to achieve an appropriate balance between user trust and scepticism.
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.