How to check sources in an AI clinical answer
A practical reading workflow for physicians: identify the claim, open its reference, check the scope, and keep uncertainty visible.
Begin with the claim that matters
A clinical answer can contain several kinds of statement: a definition, a summary of evidence, a recommendation, and an inference about the question. Reading the whole response as one claim makes it difficult to check. Start with the sentence that could change your understanding or your next step. Identify exactly what it says before opening a reference.
Keep the original question beside the answer. Was the question about a particular population, setting, or publication? Did the response retain those boundaries? A well-written answer can drift into a broader question. Checking that fit first gives you a specific purpose when you open the source.
Confirm which document you are reading
Follow the citation and check the title, author or issuing organisation, publication date, and document version. A guideline, an individual study, an abstract, and a product label play different roles. A link to a relevant document is a starting point; it does not by itself establish that the attached sentence is supported.
Distinguish the publication date from the date a website says it checked an entry. Look on the publisher's page for corrections, replacement versions, or updates. If only an abstract is available, keep that limitation explicit. Do not treat a detail that you cannot find as confirmed because the rest of the citation looks plausible.
Read the passage around the claim
Locate the relevant paragraph, table, or recommendation, then read its surrounding qualifications. Compare the population, setting, conditions, and strength of language with the AI answer. Watch for a summary changing 'may' to 'should', dropping an exception, or combining statements that come from different sources.
For example, imagine a fictional document that describes an approach only in a specialist setting. An answer that removes that setting has changed the meaning, even if it names the correct document. The useful question is whether the source supports this claim with these boundaries, not whether the citation contains similar words.
Make disagreements and gaps visible
When two sources differ, record what differs before trying to resolve it: publication date, intended population, available resources, or the question each document addresses. Do not assume the newest date answers every applicability question. Keep each recommendation attached to its own source rather than merging them into a single, apparently unanimous position.
A focused follow-up can ask the assistant to identify the supporting passage or separate source statements from inference. Check that follow-up too. Repetition, fluent explanation, and additional citations do not independently verify an answer. If the supporting material remains unavailable or unclear, retain the uncertainty and consult the relevant original reference or local process.
Leave a useful record
Keep the document identity, version, relevant passage, and unresolved limitation with your own notes. This makes the reasoning easier to revisit than a copied answer alone. When reporting a suspected House error, identify the exact sentence and reference, without including patient identifiers. The editorial policy provides the corrections route.
House places references alongside clinical answers so this inspection can be part of using the product. Citations do not guarantee correct interpretation, complete retrieval, or applicability to a patient. This reading workflow supports the physician's evaluation; clinical responsibility and the final decision remain with the treating clinician.
