Artificial intelligence and nursing: it’s all about trust
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?
Necessary oversight is maintained for complex scenarios when using GenAI.
“while maintaining necessary oversight for complex scenarios (Hallas, 2023; Kaneda et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2023; Ni et al., 2024).”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Hallas, 2023
In “Artificial Intelligence and Nursing: It’s All About Trust” (page unavailable), Hallas calls for clinicians, educators, and researchers to address concerns about ChatGPT-generated clinical recommendations and says authors must take responsibility for AI-assisted manuscripts. This supports the need for human oversight, but the paper does not specifically discuss oversight for complex scenarios or establish that it is maintained. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNewer GenAI versions demonstrated improved accuracy rates across multiple studies.
“Newer GenAI versions demonstrated improved accuracy rates across multiple studies”
From Patterns, advances, and gaps in using ChatGPT and similar technologies in nursing education: A PAGER scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as Hallas, 2023
The main text (page unavailable) discusses ChatGPT’s inaccurate references and describes earlier machine-learning studies, but does not compare newer GenAI versions with older ones or report accuracy rates across studies. Searches for improved accuracy in successive versions found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The ChatGPT Storm and What Faculty Can Do
Sun, G. H., & Hoelscher, S. H. (2023) · Nurse Educator · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001390 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Social Robots for Hospitalized Children
Logan, D. E., Breazeal, C., Goodwin, M. S., Jeong, S., O’Connell, B., Smith-Freedman, D., Heathers, J., & Weinstock, P. (2019) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2018-1511 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
An ensemble boosting model for predicting transfer to the pediatric intensive care unit
Rubin, J., Potes, C., Xu-Wilson, M., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.001 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Klann, J. G., Anand, V., & Downs, S. M. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001865 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Elsevier Manager. (2023). Journal of Pediatric Health Care. https:// www.jpedhc.org/content/authorinfo.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., & Montayre, J. (2024) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106323 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Amankwaa, I., Ekpor, E., Cudjoe, D., Kobiah, E., Fuseini, A.-K. J., Diebieri, M., Gyamfi, S., & Brownie, S. (2025) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106822 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hallas, D.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hallas, Donna
- ORCID
- Hallas, Donna
- Venue
- Journal of Pediatric Health Care
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 461-462
- ISSN
- 0891-5245 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4386263529
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Pediatric Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in nursing, trust, nursing profession, nurse practitioners, nurse researchers, quality improvement, nursing education, peer review, nursing publishing
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Trust
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
