ArticleNature communications2025
Linguistic features of AI mis/disinformation and the detection limits of LLMs.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The persuasive capability of large language models (LLMs) in generating mis/disinformation is widely recognized, but the linguistic ambiguity of such content and inconsistent findings on LLM-based detection reveal unresolved risks in information governance. To address the lack of Chinese datasets, this study compiles two datasets of Chinese AI mis/disinformation generated by multi-lingual models involving deepfakes and cheapfakes. Through psycholinguistic and computational linguistic analyses, the quality modulation effects of eight language features (including sentiment, cognition, and personal concerns), along with toxicity scores and syntactic dependency distance differences, were discovered. Furthermore, key factors influencing zero-shot LLMs in comprehending and detecting AI mis/disinformation are examined. The results show that although implicit linguistic distinctions exist, the intrinsic detection capability of LLMs remains limited. Meanwhile, the quality modulation effects of AI mis/disinformation linguistic features may lead to the failure of AI mis/disinformation detectors. These findings highlight the major challenges of applying LLMs in information governance.
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.