Fake doctor reviews trusted more than real ones, SFU study finds
Peer-Reviewed Publication
Updates every hour. Last Updated: 25-Oct-2026 15:15 ET (25-Oct-2026 19:15 GMT/UTC)
Fake clinician reviews are often seen as more trustworthy and helpful than genuine ones, according to a Simon Fraser University study.
New research reveals fraudulent clinician reviews often seem more credible because they include richer personal health details that real patients are reluctant sharing publicly. Researchers say these detailed narratives exploit a gap between the information people want to read and what real patients are willing to share.
In the midst of another intense wildfire season, a new study sheds light on the risks they pose to life-sustaining dialysis care for thousands of Canadians.
In a first-of-its-kind interdisciplinary project conducted by McGill researchers from the Departments of Medicine and Geography, the team led a national wildfire risk assessment focused on Canadian dialysis facilities. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the team integrated dialysis facility locations with historical wildfire records and current fire danger data to identify communities and patients at greatest risk.
Neuro-oncology, neurosurgery and nuclear medicine physicians from Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, in collaboration with Cerenome, Inc., launched the first clinical trial in children of radiotherapy called Rhenium-186 Nanoliposome (186RNL), which is injected directly into the brain tumor through a catheter with hopes of providing minimal exposure to the surrounding healthy tissue. Children with recurrent high grade glioma (HGG) and ependymoma who have exhausted the standard of care options might be eligible to participate.