Back

VERITAS: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach to Quantifying Epistemic Divergence and Harm Potential in Online Health Narratives

Clark, O.; Joshi, K. P.; Joshi, A.

2026-07-13 health informatics
10.64898/2026.07.11.26357840 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Online health information seeking is rising, and individuals increasingly act on peer advice without clinical oversight, adjusting doses, delaying care, and modifying treatment. Current misinformation detection assumes factually inaccurate content is what makes these decisions unsafe. We introduce VERITAS (Verification Engine for Risk-aware Information Trust Assessment in health Stories) and formalize the Risk Irrelevance Principle: divergence from accepted clinical practice and potential for harm are distinct, weakly associated dimensions that must be assessed separately. Materials and Methods: VERITAS transforms unstructured health narratives into Agent-Action-Outcome graphs and computes two continuous metrics: Narrative Truth Distance (NTD), quantifying epistemic divergence, and Narrative Risk Score (NRS), assessing harm potential. We evaluated VERITAS on 704 threads from four Reddit health communities. Two domain experts annotated 2,000 segments (Krippendorffs =0.78-0.81). NTD-NRS independence was validated using seven tests. Results: NTD and NRS shared under 5% of variance (r = 0.222; mutual information 0.096 bits): a posts divergence from consensus conveys little about whether acting on it will cause harm. On 435 labeled posts, VERITAS identified 62.2% of expert-labeled misinformation versus 57.5% for the strongest text classifier, the gain concentrated in factually plausible content describing unsafe self-management (27.6% of misinformation) that accuracy-focused classifiers approve. VERITAS assessed 37.8% of this misinformation as low-risk, pending clinical validation. Discussion: Fact-checking-based screening systematically approves the content most likely to prompt unsafe self-management while flagging content least likely to cause harm. Conclusion: Separating divergence from harm potential shifts verification from whether information is correct to whether it is safe to act upon.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.7%
2
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
3
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.7%
5
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
6
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
7
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
8
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
9
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.3%
10
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
12
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
14
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
15
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
16
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.6%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
18
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
20
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
21
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.9%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
Science
477 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
25
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%