Life-threatening medical and dental myths spread quickly on social media, thanks to influencers touting fake dental treatments and deep-fake versions of renowned dentists posting to gain credibility.
A recent article published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research questioned whether technologies could fill the gap as social media scales back fact-checking, resulting in the potential spread of misinformation. Though growing research showed that multipronged efforts, including AI and fact-checkers, could counter misinformation, it will be up to social media businesses to invest in these endeavors, according to the article.
Dr. Heike Kraemer, PhD, executive president of the Interdisciplinary Dental Education Academy (IDEA), told DrBicuspid that she agreed technology can help, but it is much more nuanced.
Dr. Heike Kraemer, PhD.
“Honestly, the three-pronged defense of AI, professional fact-checkers, and community juries is directionally correct, yet it misses the most overlooked pillar in healthcare misinformation: domain-credentialed clinical educators who can translate peer-reviewed evidence into accessible content at scale,” Kraemer said.
“The 21% to 28% miss rate for AI bots is not surprising to anyone working in specialized medicine. In fields like occlusion medicine or functional diagnostics, the corpus of reliable data is narrow, often fragmented across German, Japanese, and English-language journals. An LLM [large language model] trained on generalist content will confidently amplify outdated paradigms, such as flattening TMJ disorders into a purely stress-driven condition, a framing rejected by current biopsychosocial evidence that recognizes joint, muscular, and psychological factors together.”
Kraemer continued, “In fact, community juries sound democratic on paper, yet they become dangerous when 10,000 nonspecialists outvote three board-certified clinicians on specialized scientific and clinical claims that require expert training to properly evaluate. Crowdsourced truth works beautifully for verifying whether a celebrity quote is real ... it collapses when the subject requires 15 years of postgraduate training to evaluate. Credentialed weighting costs nothing to build ... yet nobody has done it. All that to say, fighting health myths requires expertise built into the equation from the ground up. Tech tools handle volume, though human clinical judgment handles truth.”
Dr. Vishala Patel, the owner of Edge Dental Designs, agreed that the answer isn’t simple.
Dr. Vishala Patel.
“In dentistry and medicine, we deal with nuances daily,” Patel told DrBicuspid. “A statement can be partially true but still misleading for a patient depending on context, timing, or individual health factors. That’s where I think AI alone falls short. It’s very useful for quickly identifying and flagging questionable health claims at scale, but it should never be the final authority on what’s accurate.”
Patel added that the most promising approach is a layered one.
“AI can help surface potential misinformation, professional fact-checkers and clinicians can evaluate it for medical accuracy and context, and community-based systems can add a level of transparency that helps build public trust. All three pieces serve different roles, and you need all of them working together,” Patel said.
“Where I would be cautious is over-relying on automation. Even a relatively small error rate is significant in healthcare, because misinformation can directly influence whether someone seeks care, delays treatment, or makes the wrong decision about their health. For example, a simple clerical error from the operator of the AI can cause cascading errors and harm in real life. So overall, I agree with the report’s conclusion, but I would frame AI as a support tool rather than a replacement for expert judgment. The human layer is still essential when it comes to interpreting and communicating health information responsibly.”
Dr. Catrise Austin.
Dr. Catrise Austin, a cosmetic dentist in New York City and host of the Let’s Talk Smiles Podcast, told DrBicuspid that a layered approach makes the most sense.
“There’s no single fix for misinformation -- not AI alone, not fact-checkers alone,” Austin said. “The most effective approach is layered. AI helps people access information quickly. Fact-checkers help verify accuracy. Community input adds perspective, and healthcare professionals provide real clinical judgment. Take one of those away, and the system becomes less reliable.”
The comments and observations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of DrBicuspid.com, nor should they be construed as an endorsement or admonishment of any particular idea, vendor, or organization.
