Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512343›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Search Engines and Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration: Public Health Risks and Recommendations to Safeguard Consumers Online.

Amir Reza Ashraf, Tim Ken Mackey, András Fittler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amir Reza AshrafDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-0339-5653
Tim Ken MackeyGlobal Health Program, Department of Anthropology, University of California, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2191-7833
András FittlerDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8243-6179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe online pharmacy market is growing, with legitimate online pharmacies offering advantages such as convenience and accessibility. However, this increased demand has attracted malicious actors into this space, leading to the proliferation of illegal vendors that use deceptive techniques to rank higher in search results and pose serious public health risks by dispensing substandard or falsified medicines. Search engine providers have started integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) into search engine interfaces, which could revolutionize search by delivering more personalized results through a user-friendly experience. However, improper integration of these new technologies carries potential risks and could further exacerbate the risks posed by illicit online pharmacies by inadvertently directing users to illegal vendors.

objectiveThe role of generative AI integration in reshaping search engine results, particularly related to online pharmacies, has not yet been studied. Our objective was to identify, determine the prevalence of, and characterize illegal online pharmacy recommendations within the AI-generated search results and recommendations.

methodsWe conducted a comparative assessment of AI-generated recommendations from Google's Search Generative Experience (SGE) and Microsoft Bing's Chat, focusing on popular and well-known medicines representing multiple therapeutic categories including controlled substances. Websites were individually examined to determine legitimacy, and known illegal vendors were identified by cross-referencing with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and LegitScript databases.

resultsOf the 262 websites recommended in the AI-generated search results, 47.33% (124/262) belonged to active online pharmacies, with 31.29% (82/262) leading to legitimate ones. However, 19.04% (24/126) of Bing Chat's and 13.23% (18/136) of Google SGE's recommendations directed users to illegal vendors, including for controlled substances. The proportion of illegal pharmacies varied by drug and search engine. A significant difference was observed in the distribution of illegal websites between search engines. The prevalence of links leading to illegal online pharmacies selling prescription medications was significantly higher (P=.001) in Bing Chat (21/86, 24%) compared to Google SGE (6/92, 6%). Regarding the suggestions for controlled substances, suggestions generated by Google led to a significantly higher number of rogue sellers (12/44, 27%; P=.02) compared to Bing (3/40, 7%).

conclusionsWhile the integration of generative AI into search engines offers promising potential, it also poses significant risks. This is the first study to shed light on the vulnerabilities within these platforms while highlighting the potential public health implications associated with their inadvertent promotion of illegal pharmacies. We found a concerning proportion of AI-generated recommendations that led to illegal online pharmacies, which could not only potentially increase their traffic but also further exacerbate existing public health risks. Rigorous oversight and proper safeguards are urgently needed in generative search to mitigate consumer risks, making sure to actively guide users to verified pharmacies and prioritize legitimate sources while excluding illegal vendors from recommendations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceControlled SubstancesDatabases, FactualHumansPublic HealthSearch EngineControlled Substancesartificial intelligenceBingcomparative assessmentconsumerconsumerscontrolled substancecontrolled substancescustomercustomersdrugdrugsgenerativegenerative artificial intelligenceGoogleillegalinformation seekingmedicationmedicationsonline pharmaciespatient safetypharmaceuticpharmaceuticalpharmaceuticalspharmaceuticspharmaciespharmacyrecommendationrecommendationsretrievalriskriskssafetysearchsearch enginesearch enginessearchessearchingsubstance abusesubstance usevendorvendorswebsitewebsites

Identifiers

PMID38512343
PMCPMC10995787

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.