Do Large Language Models Link to Incorrect Citations? A PubMed and DOI Benchmark.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-10-14 DOI:10.1055/a-2972-4974
Goktug Ozkan
{"title":"Do Large Language Models Link to Incorrect Citations? A PubMed and DOI Benchmark.","authors":"Goktug Ozkan","doi":"10.1055/a-2972-4974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>BACKGROUND: Large language models can return citations whose PubMed Identifier (PMID), digital object identifier (DOI), title, and journal appear plausible but identify different papers. Checking one valid identifier may therefore fail to detect an incorrect citation bundle.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure citation metadata incoherence in responses from five large language model snapshots to an internal medicine prompt benchmark.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>METHODS: Five models answered 30 synthetic prompts each, producing 150 model-by-prompt responses. Twenty-six prompts per model requested citations, and four were designed to elicit abstention. A corrected parser extracted 300 citation units. We checked reported PMIDs against PubMed metadata, queried reported DOIs separately, and rechecked DOI strings not found in PubMed through Crossref. Response-level outcomes were primary because citation units were nested within responses. The author reviewed a deterministic stratified sample of 50 units for parser capture and citation identity.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>RESULTS: Among 130 citation-expected responses, 69 contained a DOI that resolved to a different PMID than the PMID supplied by the model, 100 contained at least one automated metadata mismatch, and 28 contained no citation. Those 100 were 69 DOI-PMID, 29 other, and 2 unresolvable. All 20 abstention trap responses abstained. Among 116 units whose reported DOI resolved in PubMed, 99 resolved to a different PMID and 17 to the reported PMID. Human review found correct parser capture in 48 of 50 sampled units. Two section boundary errors were corrected before the final rerun; the primary counts did not change. Human review classified 32 sampled units as incoherent, 7 as coherent, 6 as having an unresolvable PMID, and 5 as containing no citation. Clinical claim support was not assessed.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>CONCLUSION: Citation identity failures occurred in all five tested model snapshots. Evaluation and clinical evidence workflows should confirm that the PMID, DOI, title, and journal identify the same source before treating a model-supplied citation as evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"17 4","pages":"950-954"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13668380/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2972-4974","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Large language models can return citations whose PubMed Identifier (PMID), digital object identifier (DOI), title, and journal appear plausible but identify different papers. Checking one valid identifier may therefore fail to detect an incorrect citation bundle.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure citation metadata incoherence in responses from five large language model snapshots to an internal medicine prompt benchmark.

Abstract: METHODS: Five models answered 30 synthetic prompts each, producing 150 model-by-prompt responses. Twenty-six prompts per model requested citations, and four were designed to elicit abstention. A corrected parser extracted 300 citation units. We checked reported PMIDs against PubMed metadata, queried reported DOIs separately, and rechecked DOI strings not found in PubMed through Crossref. Response-level outcomes were primary because citation units were nested within responses. The author reviewed a deterministic stratified sample of 50 units for parser capture and citation identity.

Abstract: RESULTS: Among 130 citation-expected responses, 69 contained a DOI that resolved to a different PMID than the PMID supplied by the model, 100 contained at least one automated metadata mismatch, and 28 contained no citation. Those 100 were 69 DOI-PMID, 29 other, and 2 unresolvable. All 20 abstention trap responses abstained. Among 116 units whose reported DOI resolved in PubMed, 99 resolved to a different PMID and 17 to the reported PMID. Human review found correct parser capture in 48 of 50 sampled units. Two section boundary errors were corrected before the final rerun; the primary counts did not change. Human review classified 32 sampled units as incoherent, 7 as coherent, 6 as having an unresolvable PMID, and 5 as containing no citation. Clinical claim support was not assessed.

Abstract: CONCLUSION: Citation identity failures occurred in all five tested model snapshots. Evaluation and clinical evidence workflows should confirm that the PMID, DOI, title, and journal identify the same source before treating a model-supplied citation as evidence.

大型语言模型链接到不正确的引用吗?PubMed和DOI基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书