Cited by 28Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AISubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Evaluating generative AI responses to real-world drug-related questions

Open access
Giorgi, Salvatore, Isman, Kelsey, Liu, Tingting, Fried, Zachary, Sedoc, João, Curtis, Brenda·2024·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, capable of an unprecedented ability to generate human-like text and converse in real time, hold potential for large-scale deployment in clinical settings such as substance use treatment. Treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) is particularly high stakes, requiring evidence-based clinical treatment, mental health expertise, and peer support. Thus, promises of AI systems addressing deficient healthcare resources and structural bias are relevant within this domain, especially in an anonymous setting. This study explores the effectiveness of generative AI in answering real-world substance use and recovery questions. We collect questions from online recovery forums, use ChatGPT and Meta's LLaMA-2 for responses, and have SUD clinicians rate these AI responses. While clinicians rated the AI-generated responses as high quality, we discovered instances of dangerous disinformation, including disregard for suicidal ideation, incorrect emergency helplines, and endorsement of home detox. Moreover, the AI systems produced inconsistent advice depending on question phrasing. These findings indicate a risky mix of seemingly high-quality, accurate responses upon initial inspection that contain inaccurate and potentially deadly medical advice. Consequently, while generative AI shows promise, its real-world application in sensitive healthcare domains necessitates further safeguards and clinical validation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116058

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These factors are especially important given the potential harm of incorrect medical information and that LLMs have been known to add irrelevant or sometimes dangerous text.

    “These factors are especially important given the potential harm of incorrect medical information and that LLMs have been known to add irrelevant or sometimes dangerous text (Giorgi et al., 2024;Mei et al., 2023).”

    From MedScore: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation of Open-ended Long-form Medical Answers by Domain-adapted Claim Decomposition and Verification (2026) · cites this paper as Giorgi et al., 2024

    The Results (Fact checking; page unavailable) document nonfactual and dangerous LLM responses, and the Conclusions warn that an inaccurate answer could have serious health consequences. The cited passages do not establish that the models added irrelevant text, so that part of the sentence is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Antoniak M, Naik A, Alvarado CS, Wang LL, Chen IY, 2023. Designing Guiding Principles For Nlp For healthcare: A case Study of Maternal Health. arXiv.:2312.11803. · arXiv
  2. Berglund L, Tong M, Kaufmann M, Balesni M, Stickland AC, Korbak T, Evans O, The Reversal curse: Llms trained on” a is b” Fail to learn” b is a”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12288 (2023). · arXiv
  3. National Academies of Sciences, 2016. Division of Behavioral, Social Sciences, Board on Behavioral, Sensory Sciences, and Committee on the Science of Changing Behavioral Health Social Norms. Ending discrimination against people with mental and substance use disorders: The evidence for stigma change. National Academies Press. 27631043
  4. OpenAI, Introducing chatgpt. URL https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt.OpenAI,2023.Gpt-4TechnicalReport.arXiv.:2303.08774.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giorgi, S., Isman, K., Liu, T., Fried, Z., Sedoc, J., & Curtis, B.
Affiliations
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Curtis, Brenda
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
339
Pages
116058
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400037188
Cited by
24
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, Llama 2, substance use disorders, AI-generated medical advice, disinformation, suicidal ideation, clinical validation of AI, addiction treatment
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Substance-Related Disorders, Suicidal Ideation

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