Journals / Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 52

Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing

Yapay Zekâ Tarafından Üretilen Tıbbi Yazımda Kaynak Gerçekliği ve Atıf Geçerliliği

Ahmet Aykut(SBU Van Education and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Van, Türkiye.)0009-0001-3173-8994
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Future evaluations should therefore move beyond bibliographic verification and include claim-level assessment of contextual relevance and evidentiary support.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This letter highlights the distinction between reference authenticity and citation validity in AI-generated medical writing.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although verifying whether a generated reference exists is essential, a real reference may still fail to support the specific claim to which it is attached.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Future evaluations should therefore move beyond bibliographic verification and include claim-level assessment of contextual relevance and evidentiary support.
🔬Design:Editöre Mektup
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay zekâ · Büyük dil modelleri · Tıbbi yazım

Abstract

This letter highlights the distinction between reference authenticity and citation validity in AI-generated medical writing. Although verifying whether a generated reference exists is essential, a real reference may still fail to support the specific claim to which it is attached. Future evaluations should therefore move beyond bibliographic verification and include claim-level assessment of contextual relevance and evidentiary support.

Özet

Bu mektup, yapay zekâ tarafından üretilen tıbbi yazımda kaynak gerçekliği ile atıf geçerliliği arasındaki ayrımı vurgulamaktadır. Üretilen bir kaynağın var olup olmadığını doğrulamak önemli olmakla birlikte, gerçek bir kaynak kendisine bağlanan özgül iddiayı desteklemeyebilir. Bu nedenle, gelecekteki değerlendirmeler bibliyografik doğrulamanın ötesine geçmeli ve bağlamsal uygunluk ile kanıt desteğini iddia düzeyinde incelemelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aykut, A., *, A. A. (2026). Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 52. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.1961573

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Aydin MO, Vatansever A, Kafa SE. From Hallucination to Precision: A Longitudinal Analysis of Reference Accuracy and Plagiarism in AI-Generated Medical Literature (2024–2026). Journal of Uludağ University Medical Faculty. 2026;52:1870116. doi:10.32708/uutfd.1870116.
  2. Walters WH, Wilder EI. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):14045. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5.
  3. Chelli M, Descamps J, Lavoué V, et al. Hallucination rates and reference accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for systematic reviews: comparative analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26. doi:10.2196/53164.
  4. Aykut A, Yıldırım C, Günsoy E. Large language models in emergency medicine: a critical appraisal of validity, reproducibility, and clinical utility (2020–2025). Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2026;25:117-124. doi:10.4274/eajem.galenos.2025.28412.
  5. Ganjavi C, Eppler MB, Pekcan A, et al. Publishers’ and journals’ instructions to authors on use of generative artificial intelligence in academic and scientific publishing: bibliometric analysis. BMJ. 2024;384. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-077192.