Claim LD08-SL-C23 (v1.0)

Researchers studied ChatGPT health advice without the developer’s involvement by collecting 202,590 donated conversations from 1,252 users in India, Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan (December 2022 to February 2026); an AI judge applying a published rubric rated roughly one in five health conversations high-risk.

Provenance and status

Claim type: ESTIMATE (as printed: “ESTIMATE”)
Publication status: ELIGIBLE (PREPRINT) (as printed: “ELIGIBLE WITH PREPRINT QUALIFIER”)
Verification state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY (PREPRINT) (as printed: “CONTENT VERIFIED PREPRINT”; verified by: UNKNOWN)
Does not license: A population estimate for all users, or a route that scales without paying donors
Source (field 6, as printed): Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026
Source type (field 7): PREPRINT (as printed: “Preprint”)
Institutional position: Independent academic (Rutgers University) and an independent researcher
Maturity (claim evidence / publication maturity): EMERGING (as printed: “EMERGING”)
Recorded date: 2026-10-16
Currentness / correction: This is the current version. No correction or concern relation is recorded on its Sources.

Version

Pinned version v1.0 (entry LD08-SL-C23--v1.0) — this page never floats to newer evidence.

This pinned version is also the current version.

Versions:v1.0 · current

Pinned Sources (field 6, version-specific)

“Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026” → SRC-SL-ROY-CHOWDHURY-GARIMELLA-ARXIV-2610-18465--v1.0 — Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026; class PREPRINT (explicit public provenance pin)

All 25 canonical Claim fields (raw values and normalized values)

#	Canonical field	Canonical value (verbatim)	Normalized (Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2)
1	CLAIM ID	LD08-SL-C23	—
2	PUBLIC-FACING CLAIM	Researchers studied ChatGPT health advice without the developer’s involvement by collecting 202,590 donated conversations from 1,252 users in India, Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan (December 2022 to February 2026); an AI judge applying a published rubric rated roughly one in five health conversations high-risk.	—
3	CLAIM TYPE	ESTIMATE	base_types: ESTIMATE
4	RESEARCH STRAND	B — Data and access	—
5	MATURITY	EMERGING	states: EMERGING
6	SOURCE	Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026	source_ids: SRC-SL-ROY-CHOWDHURY-GARIMELLA-ARXIV-2610-18465
7	SOURCE TYPE	Preprint	classes: PREPRINT
8	INSTITUTIONAL POSITION	Independent academic (Rutgers University) and an independent researcher	—
9	SCOPE	ChatGPT users in four countries who donated their full conversation histories	—
10	DESIGN	Consent-based, paid data donation using the product’s export function; rubric-based risk rating	—
11	SAMPLE / DATASET	202,590 conversations from 1,252 users; 15,555 health conversations	—
12	MODEL / TOOL / VERSION	ChatGPT (studied); Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview as the risk judge	—
13	COMPARATOR	Ratings with and without the user’s own context	—
14	MAIN RESULT	About one in five health conversations rated high-risk; in a context-aware subsample of 5,657 conversations, adding the user’s context raised the high-risk share by 13–17 percentage points, which the authors say does not extrapolate	—
15	INFERENTIAL TARGET	Whether data donation can give independent access to real AI use	—
16	DOES NOT LICENSE	A population estimate for all users, or a route that scales without paying donors	—
17	VERIFICATION STATE	CONTENT VERIFIED PREPRINT	state: CONTENT_VERIFIED_PRIMARY · qualifiers: PREPRINT · verified_by: UNKNOWN
18	LIMITATIONS	Read in arXiv version 1 (13 October 2026); donors are a paid convenience sample of crowdworkers; risk dimensions and anchors are taken from Kempermann et al. (2026) and applied by an AI judge, with the authors’ own high-risk cut-off; scores measure risk, not health outcomes; the intent classifier was validated (κ = 0.78); data are released on OSF	—
19	CONTRADICTORY / SUPPORTING SOURCES	LD08-SL-C22	—
20	GEOGRAPHY / LANGUAGE	Multi-country	—
21	DISTRIBUTIONAL LEDGER	Studies users in four lower- and middle-income countries	—
22	R01 / FIELD-MAP LINKS	LD-08, D3	—
23	WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS CLAIM?	Evidence that donation samples match the platform’s user population	—
24	PUBLICATION STATUS	ELIGIBLE WITH PREPRINT QUALIFIER	state: ELIGIBLE · qualifiers: PREPRINT
25	RECORDED DATE	2026-10-16	—

Field 22 references resolved against Field Map v0.2: LD-08 (LIVING_DEBATE); D3 (DOMAIN)

Cited by Living Debate versions

LD-08 v0.1

Research-of-record provenance

Materialized by sociolens-materializer 0.6.0 at 2026-09-28T20:00:00.000Z; normalization contract SocioLens — Claim Value Vocabulary v1.0.2 — Pre-Spike Materialization Contract (v1.0.2). Content seal SHA-256 15748f6eb17e0a4a228fc4521f283b2e08a18f42defff755fed0154e3093d67d.

Repository-authored inputs (not Drive exports)

SocioLens claim — LD08-SL-C23 v1.0 (v1.0) — written in the SocioLens repository by Project Lead (Claude, AI) on 2026-10-16; no Drive identity exists. Authority: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 16 October 2026 to build the LD-08 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-08 source notes, checked against full texts, official web pages or official abstracts. Block “ENTRY 23 — LD08-SL-C23” SHA-256 7ecd4963c10f75710c4ed2fd1795e89a482ab504be62b371091cf18f55dea6a8; fixture fixtures/authored/claims/LD08-SL-C23--v1.0.

Builder decisions (not Drive data)

VERSION = v1.0 — basis: Claim version taken from the repository-authored claim fixture version (SocioLens claim — LD08-SL-C23 v1.0); the first version of a new Claim of the LD-08 debate
CURRENT_POINTER = true — basis: repository-authored claim "SocioLens claim — LD08-SL-C23 v1.0" (Project Lead (Claude, AI), 2026-10-16); basis: AGENTS.md "Authority" (the Project Lead decides research content within the research-integrity rules) and the Owner's choice in the SocioLens project chat on 16 October 2026 to build the LD-08 debate; a new Claim, first version, written from the project's LD-08 source notes, checked against full texts, official web pages or official abstracts
FIELD_6_SOURCE_REFERENCE = SRC-SL-ROY-CHOWDHURY-GARIMELLA-ARXIV-2610-18465--v1.0 — basis: field 6 of ENTRY 23 — LD08-SL-C23 cites "Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026"; the only field-6 segment of this ClaimVersion's repository-authored ledger block.
SOURCE_PROVENANCE_PIN = SRC-SL-ROY-CHOWDHURY-GARIMELLA-ARXIV-2610-18465--v1.0 — basis: explicit version-pinned public provenance of this ClaimVersion (Amendment v1.2 §6): the pinned field-6 Source record "Roy Chowdhury & Garimella, “How Safe Is ChatGPT Health Advice? Evidence from Real User Conversations in Four Global South Countries,” arXiv:2610.18465, 2026".