arXiv:2607. 09253v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI chatbots are increasingly used for answering health-related questions.
By Gwenn Beets, Anniek Jansen, Saar Hommes, Ruben D. Vromans, Leonie Westerbeek, Supraja Sankaran, Julia C. M. van Weert, Emiel J. Krahmer, Nadine Bol
The study surveyed 761 Nigerian healthcare professionals to assess their readiness for AI adoption in clinical settings. While 92.6% were aware of AI, only 63.0% felt prepared and 40.9% reported low knowledge, highlighting a gap between awareness and readiness. Major barriers identified were lack of training, poor infrastructure, high costs, job displacement fears, ethical and data privacy concerns, with significant regional and professional differences in preparedness and attitudes.
By Abbas M. Rabiu, Abdulrazaq A. Zubair, Um-mulkhairi Ibrahim, Tolulope Olusuyi, Shaheeda Farouq, Safwan M. Dafi, Adaobi C. Emegoakor, Yewande Gbadamosi, Maruf Adewole
arXiv:2602.11391v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Objective: This study develops and validates a patient simulation framework that aligns with the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI...
By Md Tanvir Rouf Shawon, Mohammad Sabik Irbaz, Hadeel R. A. Elyazori, Keerti Reddy Resapu, Yili Lin, Vladimir Franzuela Cardenas, K. Pierre Eklou, Farrokh Alemi, Kevin Lybarger
arXiv:2606. 20605v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for health information, yet its influence on users' trust calibration remains unclear.
By Arif Ahmed, Gondy Leroy, Agrim Sachdeva, Philip Harber, Stephen A. Rains, Seokjun Youn, Prosanta Barai
arXiv:2606. 08483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Background: Consumer-facing large language models are now a common source of health information, and they interpret and personalize responses rather than retrieve them.
By Rahul Gorijavolu, Kaushik Madapati, Pritika Vig, Rawan Abulibdeh, Nikhil Jaiswal, Mahri Kadyrova, Zeamanuel Hailu Tesfaye, Charles Senteio, Paula Maurutto, Leo Anthony Celi
The study compares communication styles of large language models (LLMs) and humans in explaining COVID‑19 misinformation, using a dataset of 1,498 fact‑checking claims and 99 blinded reader evaluations. LLM‑generated explanations scored lower on persuasive strategies, certainty, and alignment with social values, yet over 60% of participants preferred LLM content for clarity, completeness, and persuasiveness. The findings suggest that reader preference may not align with traditional measures of communication quality, highlighting both the promise and limits of LLMs in health communication.
By Jiawei Zhou, Kritika Venkatachalam, Minje Choi, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury