The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The COVID-19 infodemic
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The diffusion of misinformation conveyed through rapidly disseminated channels such as mass media and social networks, can generate the phenomenon known as infodemic (57).”
From ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023) · cites this paper as [57]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic
Sachs, J. D., Karim, S. S. A., Aknin, L., Allen, J., Brosbøl, K., Colombo, F., Barron, G. C., Espinosa, M. F., Gaspar, V., Gaviria, A., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(22)01585-9 · Cited by 842
ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health
De Angelis, L., Baglivo, F., Arzilli, G., Privitera, G. P., Ferragina, P., Tozzi, A. E., & Rizzo, C. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1166120 · Cited by 708
Generating scholarly content with ChatGPT: Ethical challenges for medical publishing
Liebrenz, M., Schleifer, R., Buadze, A., Bhugra, D., & Smith, A. (2023) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00019-5 · Cited by 594
Agley, J. D., & Xiao, Y. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x · Cited by 266
Song, S., Yao, X., & Wen, N. (2020) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102407 · Cited by 299
“As an individual's information processing is sensitive to the affect associated with uncertainty appraisals, it is necessary to distinguish affect at a more fine-grained level than merely positive and negative (Tiedens & Linton, 2001).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Diseases, T. L. I.
- Corresponding author
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
- Venue
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 875
- ISSN
- 1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7367666
- OpenAlex
- W4205924832
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, infodemic, misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories, social media, trust in health institutions, infodemiology, World Health Organization
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Communication, Health Policy, Humans, Pneumonia, Viral, Publishing, Journalism, Medical, Coronavirus Infections, Information Dissemination, Pandemics, Social Media
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
