The DOI matches its DataCite record, with a small difference in title or year; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Fact-Checking Generative AI: Ontology-Driven Biological Graphs for Disease-Gene Link Verification
Open accessAbstract
Since the launch of various generative AI tools, scientists have been striving to evaluate their capabilities and contents, in the hope of establishing trust in their generative abilities. Regulations and guidelines are emerging to verify generated contents and identify novel uses. we aspire to demonstrate how ChatGPT claims are checked computationally using the rigor of network models. We aim to achieve fact-checking of the knowledge embedded in biological graphs that were contrived from ChatGPT contents at the aggregate level. We adopted a biological networks approach that enables the systematic interrogation of ChatGPT's linked entities. We designed an ontology-driven fact-checking algorithm that compares biological graphs constructed from approximately 200,000 PubMed abstracts with counterparts constructed from a dataset generated using the ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo model. In 10-samples of 250 randomly selected records a ChatGPT dataset of 1000 "simulated" articles , the fact-checking link accuracy ranged from 70% to 86%. This study demonstrated high accuracy of aggregate disease-gene links relationships found in ChatGPT-generated texts.
Overview
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Although these methods are still under investigation, they have the potential to provide a rigorous mathematical framework for distinguishing between factual content and the hallucinations generated by generative AI tools such as ChatGPT.31”
From Safeguarding authenticity for mitigating the harms of generative AI: Issues, research agenda, and policies for detection, fact-checking, and ethical AI (2024) · cites this paper as [31]
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.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Eva AM Van Dis, Johan Bollen, Willem Zuidema, Robert van Rooij, and Claudi L Bockting. Chatgpt: five priorities for research. Nature, 614(7947):224-226, 2023.
- Nikhita Vedula and Srinivasan Parthasarathy. Face-keg: Fact checking explained using knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 526-534, 2021.
- Peng Lin, Qi Song, Jialiang Shen, and Yinghui Wu. Discovering graph patterns for fact checking in knowledge graphs. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, pages 783-801. Springer, 2018.
- Peng Lin, Qi Song, Yinghui Wu, and Jiaxing Pi. Discovering patterns for fact checking in knowledge graphs. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), 11(3):1-27, 2019.
- Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Prashant Shiralkar, Luis M Rocha, Johan Bollen, Fil- ippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. Computational fact checking from knowl- edge networks. PloS one, 10(6):e0128193, 2015.
- Shuai Wang, Lei Wang, and Wenji Mao. A kg-based enhancement framework for fact checking using category information. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), pages 1-6. IEEE, 2020.
- Saransh Khandelwal and Dhananjay Kumar. Computational fact validation from knowledge graph using structured and unstructured information. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM IKDD CoDS and 25th COMAD, pages 204-208, 2020.
- Téo Orthlieb, Hamdi Ben Abdessalem, and Claude Frasson. Checking method for fake news to avoid the twitter effect. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 17th International Conference, ITS 2021, Virtual Event, June 7-11, 2021, Proceedings 17, pages 68-72. Springer, 2021.
- Baoxu Shi and Tim Weninger. Proje: Embedding projection for knowledge graph completion. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'17, page 1236-1242. AAAI Press, 2017.
- Paolo Mengoni and Jinyu Yang. Empowering covid-19 fact-checking with extended knowledge graphs. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, pages 138-150. Springer, 2022.
- Jiseong Kim and Key Sun Choi. Unsupervised fact checking by counter-weighted positive and negative evidential paths in a knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics, 2020.
- Ji-Seong Kim and Key-Sun Choi. Fact checking in knowledge graphs by logical consistency. Semantic Web Journal, swj2721, 2021.
- Biru Zhu, Xingyao Zhang, Ming Gu, and Yangdong Deng. Knowledge enhanced fact checking and verification. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing, 29, 2021.
Metadata
- Authors
- Hamed, A. A., Lee, B. S., Crimi, A., & Misiak, M. M.
- Affiliations
- Binghamton University (US)
- University of Vermont (US)
- Sano – Centre for Computational Personalised Medicine International Research Foundation (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Hamed, Ahmed Abdeen
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 130-137
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2308.03929
- OpenAlex
- W4400097814
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- fact-checking, generative AI, ChatGPT, biological networks, knowledge graphs, PubMed abstracts
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fact-Checking Generative AI: Ontology-Driven Biological Graphs for Disease-Gene Link Verification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2308.03929
- The paper
- Hamed, A. A., Lee, B. S., Crimi, A., & Misiak, M. M. (2023). Fact-Checking Generative AI: Ontology-Driven Biological Graphs for Disease-Gene Link Verification. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2308.03929
