August 25, 2026
Five sources to audit for AI visibility
Five sources account for roughly four in five ChatGPT citations about physicians. Practices can audit all five themselves.
Usually, no independent one. We sampled 200 independent practices at random and ran nearly 5,000 patient-realistic prompts through ChatGPT. It named zero of them.
This is the running record of what large language models actually say when people look for care – which practices surface, which sources the models trust, and what the visible practices do differently. Built from our own measurement corpus, shared openly.
ChatGPT mentioned and cited 0 of 200 randomly-sampled independent practices.
Our research, published in national physician media.
Five sources account for roughly four in five ChatGPT citations about physicians. Practices can audit all five themselves.
Only 2.1% of citations describing the average named practice came from its own website. Third parties supplied the rest.
Two in three practices ChatGPT names in specialist searches are hospital-affiliated. Here’s where independents can compete.
We tested 200 independent practices with nearly 5,000 ChatGPT prompts, and not one was named. This research explains the gap.
We mapped 33,340 ChatGPT citations across 200 practices and 10 specialties to see which sources shape who gets named.
On-site · Deep dive
The 0-of-200 result, the five on-site signals almost no practice has, and why your specialty and metro set your ceiling.
Read the on-site findings
Off-site · Interactive map
An interactive map of 33,340 citation events – the hospital rosters, associations, and magazines the model actually pulls from, pivotable by specialty.
Explore the citation map
Dental · Deep dive
Across 1,405 dental questions, practice-owned websites drew 53.8% of the 13,152 sources ChatGPT cited – more than three times the next category. The full mix by sub-specialty and metro.
Read the dental findings
Dental · Case-control
A matched comparison of 540 dental practice websites. 33.6% of cited sites had a page of 1,000 words or more against 19.3% of matched uncited sites; FAQ markup, Q&A blocks and credential schema did not separate the groups.
Read the comparison
Health systems · Study companion
In small US metros, the health system an AI model recommended most got 37.9% of local care recommendations on average, against 23.8% in the largest metros. We analyzed 3,000 answers across 30 metros and 30 service lines, including how often the list changed when we asked again.
Read the study
Every figure on this site comes from our own measurement corpora, not estimates.
For the medical corpus we drew a stratified random sample of independent practices from the NPPES registry across 18 specialties and 20 metros, then ran a fixed battery of patient-realistic prompts – scoped to each practice’s specialty and metro – through GPT-5.5 via the OpenAI API, with multiple runs per query to absorb variance. We separate a mention (your name in the answer a patient reads) from a citation (a URL the model pulls from), and anchor on mentions wherever the data supports it. In June and July 2026 we ran a parallel dental corpus the same way – 1,405 patient-realistic dental questions across 20 metros and seven areas of dentistry, with all 13,152 cited sources categorized by type. Single-platform, US-only, correlational. Behavior on Gemini and Google AI Overviews may differ.
New to AI search optimization? Our plain-language guides in Learn explain the concepts behind this research.