SavedAdd your journal

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

Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing

Mevlüt Okan Aydin(Bursa Uludag University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Education, Bursa, Türkiye.)0000-0002-8060-8803
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)

Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing
📊
Key Findings & Data:Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing
🔬Design:Editöre Mektup
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing

Özet

Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydin, M. O., *, M. O. A. (2026). Reply to Reference Authenticity and Citation Validity in AI-Generated Medical Writing. Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 52. https://doi.org/10.32708/uutfd.2058194

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Bhattacharyya M, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya D, Miller LE. High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39238. doi:10.7759/cureus.39238. PMID: 37337480
  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. PMID: 37679503
  3. Wu K, Wu E, Wei K, et al. An automated framework for assessing how well LLMs cite relevant medical references. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):3615. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58551-6. PMID: 40240349
  4. Aljamaan F, Temsah MH, Altamimi I, et al. Reference hallucination score for medical artificial intelligence chatbots: development and usability study. JMIR Med Inform. 2024;12:e54345. doi:10.2196/54345. PMID: 39083799
  5. Jergas H, Baethge C. Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ. 2015;3:e1364. doi:10.7717/peerj.1364. PMID: 26528420
  6. Greenberg SA. How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ. 2009;339:b2680. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680. PMID: 19622839
  7. Sallam M, Barakat M, Sallam M. A preliminary checklist (METRICS) to standardize the design and reporting of studies on generative artificial intelligence-based models in health care education and practice: development study involving a literature review. Interact J Med Res. 2024;13:e54704. doi:10.2196/54704. PMID: 38276872
  8. Gallifant J, Afshar M, Ameen S, et al. The TRIPOD-LLM reporting guideline for studies using large language models. Nat Med. 2025;31(1):60-69. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03425-5. PMID: 39779929
  9. Labenbacher S, Niederer M, Hammer S, Bader M, Schreiber N,Bornemann-Cimenti H. Performance of AI tools in citingretracted literature: content analysis. J Med Internet Res.2026;28:e88766. doi:10.2196/88766. PMID: 42066286
  10. Tam TYC, Sivarajkumar S, Kapoor S, et al. A framework forhuman evaluation of large language models in healthcarederived from literature review. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):258.doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7. PMID: 39333376
  11. Yardley S, Dornan T. Kirkpatrick's levels and education'evidence'. Med Educ. 2012;46(1):97-106. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x. PMID: 22150201