The Guardian revealed an investigation claiming well being specialists discovered inaccurate or deceptive steerage in some AI Overview responses for medical queries. Google disputes the reporting and says many examples had been primarily based on incomplete screenshots.
The Guardian mentioned it examined health-related searches and shared AI Overview responses with charities, medical specialists, and affected person info teams. Google informed The Guardian the “overwhelming majority” of AI Overviews are factual and useful.
What The Guardian Reported Discovering
The Guardian mentioned it examined a variety of well being queries and requested well being organizations to evaluate the AI-generated summaries. A number of reviewers mentioned the summaries included deceptive or incorrect steerage.
One instance concerned pancreatic most cancers. Anna Jewell, director of assist, analysis and influencing at Pancreatic Most cancers UK, mentioned advising sufferers to keep away from high-fat meals was “fully incorrect.” She added that following that steerage “might be actually harmful and jeopardise an individual’s possibilities of being nicely sufficient to have remedy.”
The reporting additionally highlighted psychological well being queries. Stephen Buckley, head of data at Thoughts, mentioned some AI summaries for situations corresponding to psychosis and consuming problems provided “very harmful recommendation” and had been “incorrect, dangerous or could lead on individuals to keep away from in search of assist.”
The Guardian cited a most cancers screening instance too. Athena Lamnisos, chief govt of the Eve Attraction most cancers charity, mentioned a pap take a look at being listed as a take a look at for vaginal most cancers was “fully incorrect info.”
Sophie Randall, director of the Affected person Data Discussion board, mentioned the examples confirmed “Google’s AI Overviews can put inaccurate well being info on the prime of on-line searches, presenting a danger to individuals’s well being.”
The Guardian additionally reported that repeating the identical search may produce totally different AI summaries at totally different instances, pulling from totally different sources.
Google’s Response
Google disputed each the examples and the conclusions.
A spokesperson informed The Guardian that most of the well being examples shared had been “incomplete screenshots,” however from what the corporate may assess they linked “to well-known, respected sources and advocate in search of out skilled recommendation.”
Google informed The Guardian the “overwhelming majority” of AI Overviews are “factual and useful,” and that it “repeatedly” makes high quality enhancements. The corporate additionally argued that AI Overviews’ accuracy is “on a par” with different Search options, together with featured snippets.
Google added that when AI Overviews misread net content material or miss context, it’ll take motion beneath its insurance policies.
See additionally: Google AI Overviews Influence On Publishers & How To Adapt Into 2026
The Broader Accuracy Context
This investigation lands in the course of a debate that’s been working since AI Overviews expanded in 2024.
Through the preliminary rollout, AI Overviews drew consideration for weird outcomes, together with strategies involving glue on pizza and consuming rocks. Google later mentioned it might scale back the scope of queries that set off AI-written summaries and refine how the function works.
I coated that launch, and the early accuracy issues rapidly turned a part of the general public narrative round AI summaries. The query then was whether or not the problems had been edge circumstances or one thing extra structural.
Extra just lately, knowledge from Ahrefs suggests medical YMYL queries are extra possible than common to set off AI Overviews. In its evaluation of 146 million SERPs, Ahrefs reported that 44.1% of medical YMYL queries triggered an AI Overview. That’s greater than double the general baseline fee within the dataset.
Separate analysis on medical Q&A in LLMs has pointed to citation-support gaps in AI-generated solutions. One analysis framework, SourceCheckup, discovered that many responses weren’t totally supported by the sources they cited, even when techniques supplied hyperlinks.
Why This Issues
AI Overviews seem above ranked outcomes. When the subject is well being, errors carry extra weight.
Publishers have spent years investing in documented medical experience to satisfy. This investigation places the identical highlight on Google’s personal summaries once they seem on the prime of outcomes.
The Guardian’s reporting additionally highlights a sensible drawback. The identical question can produce totally different summaries at totally different instances, making it more durable to confirm what you noticed by working the search once more.
Wanting Forward
Google has beforehand adjusted AI Overviews after viral criticism. Its response to The Guardian signifies it expects AI Overviews to be judged like different Search options, not held to a separate normal.
