aceComparative Evaluation of AI Chatbots for Medical Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Background: The use of generative AI in research and clinical practice is rapidly expanding, offering unprecedented capabilities in pattern extraction and data analysis. However, its application raises critical concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the information provided. Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze and compare the performance of 4 generative AI platforms (ChatGPT, Grok, Meta AI, and Perplexity) in retrieving bibliographic references within the medical and health care field and…
Across four AI chatbots, only 128 of 360 requested medical references matched real evidence exactly; 273 were generated, and Perplexity showed critical rates of total hallucination.
The authors state that the findings apply only under the specific testing conditions of the study, which covered three queries run in Guest mode on four platforms.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedJMIR Formative Research2026-11-03
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2363, v2: “Comparative Evaluation of AI Chatbots for Medical Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.” Truvace, 2026-11-04. /record/TRV-2026-2363 (accessed at citation time). sha256 8f324c512e925845…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open.
Editorial pass: sharper headline; gain/problem restated as concrete outcomes.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2363 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.