Search Engines and Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration: Public Health Risks and Recommendations to Safeguard Consumers Online
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The online pharmacy market is growing, with legitimate online pharmacies offering advantages such as convenience and accessibility. However, this increased demand has attracted malicious actors into this space, leading to the proliferation of illegal vendors that use deceptive techniques to rank higher in search results and pose serious public health risks by dispensing substandard or falsified medicines. Search engine providers have started integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) into search engine interfaces, which could revolutionize search by delivering more personalized results through a user-friendly experience. However, improper integration of these new technologies carries potential risks and could further exacerbate the risks posed by illicit online pharmacies by inadvertently directing users to illegal vendors. OBJECTIVE: The role of generative AI integration in reshaping search engine results, particularly related to online pharmacies, has not yet been studied. Our objective was to identify, determine the prevalence of, and characterize illegal online pharmacy recommendations within the AI-generated search results and recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a comparative assessment of AI-generated recommendations from Google's Search Generative Experience (SGE) and Microsoft Bing's Chat, focusing on popular and well-known medicines representing multiple therapeutic categories including controlled substances. Websites were individually examined to determine legitimacy, and known illegal vendors were identified by cross-referencing with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and LegitScript databases. RESULTS: Of the 262 websites recommended in the AI-generated search results, 47.33% (124/262) belonged to active online pharmacies, with 31.29% (82/262) leading to legitimate ones. However, 19.04% (24/126) of Bing Chat's and 13.23% (18/136) of Google SGE's recommendations directed users to illegal vendors, including for controlled substances. The proportion of illegal pharmacies varied by drug and search engine. A significant difference was observed in the distribution of illegal websites between search engines. The prevalence of links leading to illegal online pharmacies selling prescription medications was significantly higher (P=.001) in Bing Chat (21/86, 24%) compared to Google SGE (6/92, 6%). Regarding the suggestions for controlled substances, suggestions generated by Google led to a significantly higher number of rogue sellers (12/44, 27%; P=.02) compared to Bing (3/40, 7%). CONCLUSIONS: While the integration of generative AI into search engines offers promising potential, it also poses significant risks. This is the first study to shed light on the vulnerabilities within these platforms while highlighting the potential public health implications associated with their inadvertent promotion of illegal pharmacies. We found a concerning proportion of AI-generated recommendations that led to illegal online pharmacies, which could not only potentially increase their traffic but also further exacerbate existing public health risks. Rigorous oversight and proper safeguards are urgently needed in generative search to mitigate consumer risks, making sure to actively guide users to verified pharmacies and prioritize legitimate sources while excluding illegal vendors from recommendations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».