ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2025
A scoping review of natural language processing in addressing medically inaccurate information: Errors, misinformation, and hallucination.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role reconstruction among double-qualified nursing educators in the generative AI era: a qualitative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Videos in short-video sharing platforms as sources of information on osteoarthritis: cross-sectional content analysis study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis review aims to explore the potential and challenges of using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to detect, correct, and mitigate medically inaccurate information, including errors, misinformation, and hallucination. By unifying these concepts, the review emphasizes their shared methodological foundations and their distinct implications for healthcare. Our goal is to advance patient safety, improve public health communication, and support the development of more reliable and transparent NLP applications in healthcare.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, analyzing studies from 2020 to 2024 across five databases. Studies were selected based on their use of NLP to address medically inaccurate information and were categorized by topic, tasks, document types, datasets, models, and evaluation metrics.
resultsNLP has shown potential in addressing medically inaccurate information on the following tasks: (1) error detection (2) error correction (3) misinformation detection (4) misinformation correction (5) hallucination detection (6) hallucination mitigation. However, challenges remain with data privacy, context dependency, and evaluation standards.
conclusionThis review highlights the advancements in applying NLP to tackle medically inaccurate information while underscoring the need to address persistent challenges. Future efforts should focus on developing real-world datasets, refining contextual methods, and improving hallucination management to ensure reliable and transparent healthcare applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.