Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care

IMPORTANCE: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific literature retrieval, yet their citation accuracy in specialized clinical domains remains poorly characterized. In neurocritical care (NCC), fabricated or inaccurate citations may be difficult to detect without deliberate verification. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate hallucination and fabrication rates of peer-reviewed citations generated by three LLMs across core NCC topics, under constrained zero-shot, memory-only conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional, blinded technology performance evaluation, Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-5.3, DeepSeek-V3, and Grok-4 were queried on March 10, 2026, under identical zero-shot, retrieval-disabled web-interface conditions. Ten NCC topics were submitted to each model, and each model generated 10 references per topic, yielding 300 references. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Two NCC experts, blinded to model identity, independently verified each reference against PubMed, DOI, Google Scholar, and CrossRef and scored accuracy using a Hallucination Scale (0-3). The primary outcome was any hallucination, defined as any citation inaccuracy. The secondary outcome was fabrication, defined as a nonexisting complete bibliographic entity. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement was excellent (κ = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96). Overall, 165 of 300 references (55.0%) contained a citation inaccuracy, and 85 of 300 (28.3%) were completely fabricated. DeepSeek-V3 had the lowest hallucination rate (23%; fabrication 8%), followed by GPT-5.3 (69%; fabrication 27%) and Grok-4 (73%; fabrication 50%). Compared with DeepSeek-V3, Grok-4 was 3.17 times more likely to hallucinate (95% CI, 2.03-4.96; p < 0.001), and GPT-5.3 was 3.00 times more likely to hallucinate (95% CI, 1.94-4.63; p < 0.001). Topic-level findings were exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Under standardized zero-shot, retrieval-disabled web-interface conditions, LLMs generated substantial numbers of inaccurate and fabricated NCC citations. Because fabricated references can appear complete and credible, artificial intelligence-generated citations should be verified across reliable databases before use in clinical, educational, or scholarly work.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Care Explorations
Published
2026-08-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/cce.0000000000001474
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care

Ali Seifi, Ali Seyfi
Critical Care Explorations
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Hallucination Rate of Peer-Reviewed Citations Generated by Large Language Models in Neurocritical Care

Ali Seifi, Ali Seyfi
article en

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for scientific literature retrieval, yet their citation accuracy in specialized clinical domains remains poorly characterized. In neurocritical care (NCC), fabricated or inaccurate citations may be difficult to detect without deliberate verification. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate hallucination and fabrication rates of peer-reviewed citations generated by three LLMs across core NCC topics, under constrained zero-shot, memory-only conditions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional, blinded technology performance evaluation, Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT)-5.3, DeepSeek-V3, and Grok-4 were queried on March 10, 2026, under identical zero-shot, retrieval-disabled web-interface conditions. Ten NCC topics were submitted to each model, and each model generated 10 references per topic, yielding 300 references. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Two NCC experts, blinded to model identity, independently verified each reference against PubMed, DOI, Google Scholar, and CrossRef and scored accuracy using a Hallucination Scale (0-3). The primary outcome was any hallucination, defined as any citation inaccuracy. The secondary outcome was fabrication, defined as a nonexisting complete bibliographic entity. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement was excellent (κ = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96). Overall, 165 of 300 references (55.0%) contained a citation inaccuracy, and 85 of 300 (28.3%) were completely fabricated. DeepSeek-V3 had the lowest hallucination rate (23%; fabrication 8%), followed by GPT-5.3 (69%; fabrication 27%) and Grok-4 (73%; fabrication 50%). Compared with DeepSeek-V3, Grok-4 was 3.17 times more likely to hallucinate (95% CI, 2.03-4.96; p < 0.001), and GPT-5.3 was 3.00 times more likely to hallucinate (95% CI, 1.94-4.63; p < 0.001). Topic-level findings were exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Under standardized zero-shot, retrieval-disabled web-interface conditions, LLMs generated substantial numbers of inaccurate and fabricated NCC citations. Because fabricated references can appear complete and credible, artificial intelligence-generated citations should be verified across reliable databases before use in clinical, educational, or scholarly work.

Critical Care ExplorationsVol. 8(9)
The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US), George Washington University (US), The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.