VERITAS: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach to Quantifying Epistemic Divergence and Harm Potential in Online Health Narratives
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Objective
Online health information seeking is rising, and individuals increasingly act on peer advice without clinical oversight, adjusting doses, delaying care, and modifying treatment. Current misinformation detection assumes factually inaccurate content is what makes these decisions unsafe. We introduce VERITAS ( V erification E ngine for R isk-aware I nformation T rust A ssessment in health S tories) and formalize the Risk Irrelevance Principle: divergence from accepted clinical practice and potential for harm are distinct, weakly associated dimensions that must be assessed separately.
Materials and Methods
VERITAS transforms unstructured health narratives into Agent-Action-Outcome graphs and computes two continuous metrics: Narrative Truth Distance (NTD), quantifying epistemic divergence, and Narrative Risk Score (NRS), assessing harm potential. We evaluated VERITAS on 704 threads from four Reddit health communities. Two domain experts annotated 2,000 segments (Krippendorff’s α=0.78-0.81). NTD-NRS independence was validated using seven tests.
Results
NTD and NRS shared under 5% of variance (r = 0.222; mutual information 0.096 bits): a post’s divergence from consensus conveys little about whether acting on it will cause harm. On 435 labeled posts, VERITAS identified 62.2% of expert-labeled misinformation versus 57.5% for the strongest text classifier, the gain concentrated in factually plausible content describing unsafe self-management (27.6% of misinformation) that accuracy-focused classifiers approve. VERITAS assessed 37.8% of this misinformation as low-risk, pending clinical validation.
Discussion
Fact-checking-based screening systematically approves the content most likely to prompt unsafe self-management while flagging content least likely to cause harm.
Conclusion
Separating divergence from harm potential shifts verification from whether information is correct to whether it is safe to act upon.
