Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries, study suggests
Briefly

Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries, study suggests
"Google's search feature AI Overviews cites YouTube more than any medical website when answering queries about health conditions, according to research that raises fresh questions about a tool seen by 2 billion people each month. The company has said its AI summaries, which appear at the top of search results and use generative AI to answer questions from users, are reliable and cite reputable medical sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Mayo Clinic."
"However, a study that analysed responses to more than 50,000 health queries, captured using Google searches from Berlin, found the top cited source was YouTube. The video-sharing platform is the world's second most visited website, after Google itself, and is owned by Google. Researchers at SE Ranking, a search engine optimisation platform, found YouTube made up 4.43% of all AI Overview citations. No hospital network, government health portal, medical association or academic institution came close to that number, they said."
Google's AI Overviews frequently cites YouTube more than any medical website when answering health queries. Google states the AI summaries are designed to surface high-quality content from reputable sources and that credible health authorities and licensed medical professionals create content on YouTube. Analysis of over 50,000 German-language queries captured from Berlin found YouTube accounted for 4.43% of all AI Overview citations, outpacing hospital networks, government health portals, medical associations and academic institutions. YouTube is a general-purpose platform where anyone can upload content, including creators without medical training. Separate reporting identified instances of false and misleading health information appearing in AI Overview responses, including incorrect liver test information that could be harmful.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]