Back

The Verification Gap: Artificial Intelligence Adoption, Hallucination Awareness, and Verification Practices Among Early Career Medical Researchers in Pakistan

Sajjad, M.

2026-05-30 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.28.26354373 medRxiv
Show abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have been rapidly adopted by medical researchers, yet whether early career researchers in low and middle income countries possess the awareness and habits needed to use these tools safely remains poorly documented. This study characterized AI adoption patterns, hallucination awareness, and verification and disclosure practices among early career medical researchers in Pakistan. A cross sectional anonymous online survey was conducted among medical students, house officers, residents, physicians, and faculty involved in research or academic work across Pakistan (May 2026). Descriptive statistics and chi square tests were applied to 373 eligible responses. AI use was near universal (99.7%), with 60.3% using AI tools daily. The most commonly reported tool in this sample was Claude (40.5%), followed by ChatGPT (29.2%) and Perplexity (26.0%), though this ranking likely reflects sampling characteristics. Despite high adoption, 59.2% typically did not verify AI outputs before use, and 40.2% had never heard that AI can generate fabricated scientific references. In behavioral vignettes, 36.5% assumed convincing AI generated references were authentic, and 54.2% would continue using remaining AI content after discovering one fabricated reference. Formal research training was strongly associated with consistent disclosure (51.7% vs. 17.1%; chi square=48.43, p less than 0.001). Role, daily use frequency, and research training were not significantly associated with verification behavior. Early career medical researchers in Pakistan demonstrate high AI adoption alongside incomplete hallucination awareness and infrequent verification, a pattern that may carry implications for research integrity. Formal training was the only factor significantly associated with consistent disclosure. Integration of AI literacy into medical curricula and institutional governance frameworks merits consideration.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.0%
2
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.8%
3
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 28%
4.3%
5
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
6
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
7
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.1%
8
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.5%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
11
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
13
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
15
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
16
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
17
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
20
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
22
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
27
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
28
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
29
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
30
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%