cs.IRMar 21, 2026

Errors in AI-Assisted Retrieval of Medical Literature: A Comparative Study

Authors: Jenny Gao, Yongfeng Zhang, Mary L Disis, Lanjing Zhang

Organizations: College of Arts and Science, New York University, New York, NY · College of Arts and Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003 · Department of Computer Sciences, School of Arts & Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ · Department of Computer Sciences, School of Arts & Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. · 

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) assisted literature retrieval may lead to erroneous references, but these errors have not been rigorously quantified. Therefore, we quantitatively assess errors in reference retrieval of widely used free-version LLM platforms and identify the factors associated with retrieval errors. We evaluated 2,000 references retrieved by 5 LLMs (Grok-2, ChatGPT GPT-4.1, Google Gemini Flash 2.5, Perplexity AI, and DeepSeek GPT-4) for 40 randomly-selected original articles (10 per journal) published Jan. 2024 to July 2025 from British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of the American Medical Association, and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Primary outcomes were a multimetric score ratio combining validity of digital object identifier, PubMed ID, Google-Scholar link, and relevance; and complete miss rate (proportion of references failing all applicable metrics). Multivariable regression was used to examine independent associations. LLM platforms completely failed to retrieve correct reference data 47.8% of the time. The average score ratio of the 5 LLM platforms was 0.29 (standard deviation, 0.35; range, 0-1.25), with a higher score ratio indicating a higher accuracy in retrieving relevant references and correct bibliographic data. The highest and lowest accuracies were achieved by Grok (0.57) and Genimi (0.11), respectively. Compared with BMJ, NEJM articles had lower score ratios and higher complete miss rates. Multivariable analysis shows LLM platforms and journals were independently associated with score ratios and complete miss rate, respectively. We show modest overall performance of LLMs and significant variability in retrieval accuracy across platforms and journals. LLM platforms and journals are associated with LLM's performance in retrieving medical literature. Bibliographic data should be carefully reviewed when using LLM-assisted literature retrieval.

More in this topic

LLM Reliability

Large language model reliability studies whether outputs remain correct, calibrated, robust, and controllable across prompts, contexts, and deployment conditions.

See all 787 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Oct 5, 2026

Errors of LLM-Assisted Literature Retrieval in Environmental Science: A Comparison Study of Abstract versus Full-text Based Prompts

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for literature search and synthesis. However, it is unclear whether they retrieve accurate bibliographic information in environmental science. Therefore, we quantitatively compared the errors of widely used LLM platforms in retrieving references related to original articles from five leading environmental science journals (Energy and Environmental Science, Nature Sustainability, Nature Climate Change, Lancet Planetary Health, and Environmental Science and Technology) published in 2024 to 2025. Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Perplexity, and Gemini were used as the LLM platforms. LLMs retrieved 10 references for each of the 50 randomly selected original article using either the article's abstract or its full-text as prompt. The retrieved references were subject to a multimetric score ratio combining validity of bibliographic data, Google Scholar link, digital object identifier, Scopus Electronic Identifier and relevance score (cited by or being the index paper), and the proportion of complete fabrication that failed all metrics. Abstract-only prompt yielded significantly higher accuracy than full-text one. This advantage was confirmed in multilevel mixed-effect multivariable regression after adjusting for journal, platform, and output order. Source journal and the position of a reference within the output list were also independently associated with retrieval accuracy, with lower-listed references associated with lower accuracy. These findings suggest that LLM assisted literature retrieval in environmental science remains moderately accurate and overall inconsistent, varying significantly by platform, journal, prompt type, and output position. Abstract-based prompting, as task-aligned information compression, may outperform full-text one in literature retrieval. Caution should be used when generalizing our findings.

Yanjun Chen, Yongfeng Zhang, Lanjing Zhang

Department of Chemical Biology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. · East Brunswick High School, East Brunswick, NJ, USA. · Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA. +3

LLM PromptingLLM ReliabilityInformation RetrievalCitation HallucinationScientific Document Retrieval
AskPDF
Sep 14, 2026

Biomedical Reference Generation Remains Unreliable across 26 Large Language Models

Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large language models do so is not well characterized. Methods. We prompted 26 language models from eight developers (2023 to 2026) to supply a missing reference for each of 69 biomedical passages across ten domains. References were classified as verifiable (real paper with a resolving identifier), partial matches (real paper without a resolving identifier), fabricated (no matching indexed paper), or declined (the model refused to supply a reference). A reference was considered correct in every evaluated bibliographic field only when it was verifiable and its journal, year, and listed authors matched those of the cited paper. Results. Fabrication ranged from 10.2% (Claude Opus 4.8, which declined 52.1% of prompts) to 98.4% (Ministral 3B, which produced no verifiable reference). Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 produced similar proportions of verifiable references (77.6% and 76.6%) but named authors correctly in 78.7% and 28.7% of author-evaluable verifiable references, respectively, and were correct in every evaluated field in 54.6% and 19.9% of responses. GPT-5.5 was correct in every field in 48.1%. Across all models, 55.4% of responses were fabricated and 14.9% were correct in every field. Among the five tested models first released in 2026, the corresponding proportions were 35.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Conclusions. Fabrication remained common, and no model was correct in every evaluated bibliographic field in more than 54.6% of responses. Models that identify real papers may still misstate their metadata, so references produced with model assistance require verification before use.

Maxim Topaz, Zhihong Zhang, Nir Roguin +3

School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA · Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA · VNS Health, New York, NY, USA +4

LLM EvaluationHallucination in Language ModelsLLM ReliabilityText Generation
AskPDF
May 13, 2026

When Evidence Conflicts: Uncertainty and Order Effects in Retrieval-Augmented Biomedical Question Answering

Biomedical retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) often face evidence that is incomplete, misleading, or internally contradictory, yet evaluation usually emphasizes answer accuracy under helpful context rather than reliability under conflict. Using HealthContradict, we evaluate six open-weight LLMs under five controlled evidence conditions: no retrieved context, correct-only context, incorrect-only context, and two mixed conditions containing both correct and contradictory documents in opposite orders. In this conflicting-evidence order contrast, where the same two documents are both present and only their order is reversed, accuracy drops for every model and 11.4%--25.2% of predictions flip. To support abstention in these difficult cases, we also evaluate a conflict-aware abstention score that combines model confidence with a detector of evidence conflict. In the two hardest conditions, this score improves selective accuracy over confidence-only, with mean gains of 7.2--33.4 points in incorrect-only (IC') and 3.6--14.4 points in incorrect-first conflicting (ICC') conditions across 75%, 50%, and 25% coverage. These results show that conflicting biomedical evidence is both an uncertainty and robustness problem and motivate evaluation and abstention methods that explicitly account for evidence disagreement.

Yikun Han, Mengfei Lan, Halil Kilicoglu

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Selective PredictionHealthcareKnowledge Conflicts in Language ModelsBiomedical QALLM Uncertainty EstimationBiomedical IR+2
AskPDF