Papers › Do AI chatbots find what experts would? Effects of model, user role, and sample size...

Do AI chatbots find what experts would? Effects of model, user role, and sample size on study retrieval for medical questions

13 Aug 2026arXiv:2608.13786added by Syntology

Qingfang Liu, Qiao Jin, Joe D. Menke, Thorsten Kahnt, Zhiyong Lu

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to answer clinical questions with citations to relevant clinical studies. Prior research has largely focused on citation fabrication, leaving a gap in evaluating the quality of retrieved studies and the factors driving their selection. In this study, we evaluated three general-purpose LLM chatbots: Claude Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and ChatGPT GPT-5.5. We prompted the models with clinical questions adapted from 20 review questions in Issues 6 and 7 of the 2026 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, simulating patient, clinician, and evidence-synthesis researcher roles. Each chatbot was queried under each user role with four independent repetitions, yielding 720 responses. Each chatbot was asked to support its answers with primary clinical citations, which we benchmarked against the included and excluded study sets of the Cochrane reviews. On average, a chatbot response retrieved 39.2% ± 29.8% of Cochrane included studies, while citing 5.0% ± 9.4% of excluded studies. Recall of Cochrane included studies varied significantly by model and user role. ChatGPT achieved higher recall than Claude or Gemini (63.1% ± 29.5% vs. 37.0% ± 23.8% vs. 17.3% ± 13.1%; p=2.0×10⁻⁵). The researcher role yielded higher recall than the clinician or patient roles (42.8% ± 30.8% vs. 38.6% ± 28.9% vs. 36.1% ± 29.3%; p=2.0×10⁻⁵). Controlling for publication year, citations per year, and open-access status, sample size was the only independently significant predictor of retrieval (odds ratio 1.80 per 1-unit increase in log sample size, 95% CI 1.37-2.36, p=2.34×10⁻⁵). These findings suggest that while LLM chatbots can retrieve some studies identified by expert reviewers, their performance varies by model and user role, and they exhibit a bias toward clinical trials with larger sample sizes.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

31 samples harvested; 25 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 6 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 31 of the 31 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from QingfangLiu/llm-evidence-retrieval-bias. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.13786, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections