To the Guardian's credit, at the bottom they explicitly cited the researchers walking back their own research claims.

> However, the researchers cautioned that these videos represented fewer than 1% of all the YouTube links cited by AI Overviews on health.

> “Most of them (24 out of 25) come from medical-related channels like hospitals, clinics and health organisations,” the researchers wrote. “On top of that, 21 of the 25 videos clearly note that the content was created by a licensed or trusted source.

> “So at first glance it looks pretty reassuring. But it’s important to remember that these 25 videos are just a tiny slice (less than 1% of all YouTube links AI Overviews actually cite). With the rest of the videos, the situation could be very different.”

Credit? It’s a misleading title and clickbait.

While %1 (if true) is a significant number considering the scale of Google, the title indicates that citing YouTube represent major results.

Also what’s the researcher view history on Google and YouTube? Isn’t that a factor in Google search results?