Search Engines and Generative Artificial Intelligence Integration: Public Health Risks and Recommendations to Safeguard Consumers Online
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".