Beware of references when using ChatGPT as a source of information to write scientific articles
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Several authors have noted that ChatGPT tends to cite works that do not actually exist.
“Several authors have noted that ChatGPT tends to cite works that do not actually exist12,16–25”
From Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT (2023) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOur results align with previous research demonstrating significant challenges associated with fabricated and inaccurate references produced by ChatGPT.
“Our results align with previous research demonstrating significant challenges associated with fabricated and inaccurate references produced by ChatGPT. 22-24”
From Fabricated or accurate? Ethical concerns and citation hallucination in aI-generated scientific writing on musculoskeletal topics (2025) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 5 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Sanchez-Ramos, L., Lin, L., & Romero, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 229
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 356-357
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10524915
- OpenAlex
- W4362699863
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Z01HD002400)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, AI chatbots, citation errors, scientific writing, AI-generated references, medical education, obstetrics and gynecology
- MeSH terms
- Information Sources, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Medical Writing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
