MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417304527 · doi:10.1136/bmj.r2570

Parallel pressures: the common roots of doctor bullshit and large language model hallucinations

2025· article· en· W4417304527 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto A Correa Soto, Liam G. McCoy, Camilo Perdomo-Luna, Jennifer Ziegler, Luís Pino, Andrés Rico, Valentina Velasco-Muñoz, Adelaida Uribe-Castaño, Adam Rodman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental modelLanguage modelHealth careMental healthcareLoop (graph theory)Action (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roberto Correa Sotoand colleagues argue that the drive that leads doctors to make unfounded statements are mirrored in the forces that cause LLMs to generate false information creating a potentially hazardous positive feedback loop in healthcare

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207