Dergiler / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 6

Co-occurrence and clustering of bibliographic errors in large language model–generated endodontic references

Mehmet Adıgüzel(HATAY MUSTAFA KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ, KLİNİK BİLİMLER BÖLÜMÜ, ENDODONTİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-9363-6264
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

LLM-generated citations should not be used without external verification through reliable bibliographic databases.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aims: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific writing; however, concerns remain regarding the reliability of the bibliographic references they generate.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study aimed to evaluate the patterns, co-occurrence, clustering, and predictors of bibliographic inaccuracies in LLM-generated references in endodontics.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:LLM-generated citations should not be used without external verification through reliable bibliographic databases.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Large language models · endodontics · reproducibility of results

Abstract

Aims: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific writing; however, concerns remain regarding the reliability of the bibliographic references they generate. While previous studies have primarily focused on overall accuracy, the structural characteristics and distribution of errors remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to evaluate the patterns, co-occurrence, clustering, and predictors of bibliographic inaccuracies in LLM-generated references in endodontics. Methods: A comparative experimental study was conducted using 2 LLMs, ChatGPT and Claude. Ten predefined endodontic queries were combined with 3 prompt types, and each model generated 5 references per query-prompt combination, resulting in 300 references. All references were verified using PubMed, Google Scholar, and CrossRef. Errors were categorized as digital object identifier (DOI) inaccuracies, title errors, journal mismatches, author inconsistencies, and year errors. Error burden, co-occurrence patterns, DOI error clustering, and predictors of DOI error occurrence were analyzed using Chi-square tests, multivariable logistic regression, and a generalized linear mixed-effects model. Results: DOI errors were the most frequent inaccuracy, followed by title and journal errors. ChatGPT generated a higher proportion of multiple-error references than Claude (48.7% vs 6.0%, p<.001), whereas fully accurate references were more common with Claude (79.3% vs 26.0%). DOI errors were associated with title and journal inaccuracies (p<.001), and DOI error clustering was more common in ChatGPT than Claude (47.3% vs 6.0%, p<.001). ChatGPT was independently associated with higher odds of DOI errors compared with Claude (OR=16.60, 95% CI: 8.70-31.66, p<.001), whereas prompt design was not significant. Conclusion: LLM-generated references showed structured, clustered, and model-dependent error patterns rather than random inaccuracies. Model type appeared to be a stronger determinant of DOI error occurrence than prompt design. LLM-generated citations should not be used without external verification through reliable bibliographic databases.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Adıgüzel, M. (2026). Co-occurrence and clustering of bibliographic errors in large language model–generated endodontic references. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1668028

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (20)

  1. Özbay Y, Erdoğan D, Dinçer GA. Evaluation of the performance of large language models in clinical decision-making in endodontics. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):648. doi:10.1186/s12903-025-06050-x
  2. Künzle P, Paris S. Performance of large language Artificial Intelligence models on solving restorative dentistry and endodontics student assessments. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(11):575. doi:10.1007/s00784-024-05968-w
  3. Xu X, Liu S, Zhu L, et al. Development and evaluation of a retrieval-augmented large language model framework for enhancing endodontic education. Int J Med Inform. 2025;203:106006. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2025.106006
  4. Sarol MJ, Ming S, Radhakrishna S, Schneider J, Kilicoglu H. Assessing citation integrity in biomedical publications: corpus annotation and NLP models. Bioinformatics. 2024;40(7):btae420. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae420
  5. Linardon J, Jarman HK, McClure Z, Anderson C, Liu C, Messer M. Influence of topic familiarity and prompt specificity on citation fabrication in mental health research using large language models: experimental study. JMIR Ment Health. 2025;12:e80371. doi:10.2196/80371
  6. Naddaf M, Quill E. Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? Nature. 2026;652(8108):26-29. doi:10.1038/d41586-026-00969-z
  7. 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
  8. Anh-Hoang D, Tran V, Nguyen LM. Survey and analysis of hallucinations in large language models: attribution to prompting strategies or model behavior. Front Artif Intell. 2025;8:1622292. doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1622292
  9. Bhattacharyya M, Miller VM, Bhattacharyya D, Miller LE, Miller V. High rates of fabricated and inaccurate references in ChatGPT-generated medical content. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39238. doi:10.7759/cureus.39238
  10. Mugaanyi J, Cai L, Cheng S, Lu C, Huang J. Evaluation of large language model performance and reliability for citations and references in scholarly writing: cross-disciplinary study. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e52935. doi:10.2196/52935
  11. Ji Z, Lee N, Frieske R, et al. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput Surv. 2023;55(12):248. doi:10.1145/3571730
  12. Cabezas-Clavijo A, Sidorenko-Bautista P. Assessing the performance of 8 AI chatbots in bibliographic reference retrieval: Grok and DeepSeek outperform ChatGPT, but none are fully accurate. J Data Inf Sci. 2026. doi:10.1515/jdis-2025-0326
  13. Adıgüzel M, Çeler AM. Accuracy and error patterns of references generated by large language models in endodontics: the role of prompt design and model selection. Med Sci Monit. 2026;32:e953782. doi:10.12659/MSM.953782
  14. Athaluri SA, Manthena SV, Kesapragada VKM, Yarlagadda V, Dave T, Duddumpudi RTS. Exploring the boundaries of reality: investigating the phenomenon of Artificial Intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e37432. doi:10.7759/cureus.37432
  15. Alkaissi H, McFarlane SI. Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: implications in scientific writing. Cureus. 2023;15(2):e35179. doi:10.7759/cureus.35179
  16. Rao D, Callison-Burch C. BibTeX citation hallucinations in scientific publishing agents: evaluation and mitigation. arXiv Preprint. 2026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.03159
  17. 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:e53164. doi:10.2196/53164
  18. Algaba A, Mazijn C, Holst V, Tori F, Wenmackers S, Ginis V. Large language models reflect human citation patterns with a heightened citation bias. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025. Albuquerque, NM. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2025:6844-6879. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.381
  19. Van Dis EA, Bollen J, Zuidema W, Van Rooij R, Bockting CL. ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature. 2023;614(7947):224-226. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00288-7
  20. Kvist T, Hofmann B. Clinical decision making of post-treatment disease. Int Endod J. 2023;56(Suppl 2):154-168. doi:10.1111/iej.13806