We analysed 216 independent New Jersey health practices to measure whether they appear in AI-generated local recommendations across ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini using the query format: "best [category] in [city] NJ". Most independent NJ health practices are not currently represented in AI recommendation systems — regardless of Google rankings, reputation, or tenure.
AI systems primarily surface entities with consistent third-party signals across indexed sources. Without these signals, practices are absent from AI-generated local recommendations.
This study measures AI citation presence — defined as whether a practice is:
AI citation presence is independent of Google rankings, website quality, reputation, and business tenure.
Each practice was queried individually across three AI systems using a standardised prompt. We tested whether the AI system included the named practice in its recommendation-style answer.
"best [category] in [city] NJ"
Each practice category was reduced to its primary field — e.g. "Chiropractic / Physical Medicine" → "chiropractic". Example: a Sea Girt NJ chiropractic practice received the query "best chiropractic in Sea Girt NJ".
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0 | No mention detected |
| 1–39 | Weak or incidental presence |
| 40–59 | Partial inclusion |
| 60–79 | Consistent inclusion |
| 80–100 | Strong inclusion — none observed in this dataset |
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 216 practices |
| Geography | New Jersey — Bergen County and South Jersey Shore |
| Categories | Dentistry, PT, chiropractic, med spa, orthopaedics, mental health, ophthalmology, pediatrics, plastic surgery, others |
| Test period | June 2026 |
| Rate control | 4-second delay per query |
| Tooling | AEOGeoAI visibility scoring system |
Limitations: AI outputs are probabilistic and may vary across time and model updates. Results represent a snapshot of observed behaviour in June 2026 and should not be interpreted as permanent or universal.
| Score | Meaning | Practices |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | No citation presence | 212 (98.1%) |
| 1–39 | Minimal presence | 0 |
| 40–59 | Weak presence | 3 (1.4%) |
| 60–79 | Moderate presence | 1 (0.5%) |
| 80–100 | Strong presence | 0 |
Only four practices appeared in any AI-generated recommendation. All four scored on a single model only.
| Practice | Category | City | ChatGPT | Claude | Gemini |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dental Arts of Hackensack | Dental | Hackensack | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Fort Lee Physical Therapy | Physical Therapy | Fort Lee | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Fort Lee Orthodontics | Orthodontics | Fort Lee | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey Eye Center | Ophthalmology | Bergenfield | 0 | 0 | 75 |
Key observation: No practice appeared across more than one model. Visibility was model-specific, not cross-system.
| Category | Tested | Zero score | Zero rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dentistry | 38 | 37 | 97% |
| Physical therapy | 21 | 20 | 95% |
| Chiropractic | 18 | 18 | 100% |
| Medical spa / Aesthetics | 19 | 19 | 100% |
| Orthopaedics / Sports medicine | 16 | 16 | 100% |
| Plastic surgery | 9 | 9 | 100% |
| Mental health / Psychiatry | 8 | 8 | 100% |
| Ophthalmology / Optometry | 8 | 7 | 88% |
| Pediatrics | 7 | 7 | 100% |
| Other specialties | 72 | 71 | 99% |
AI systems construct local recommendations by assembling entities from indexed third-party sources. Inclusion requires:
Most practices in this dataset lack sufficient third-party entity signals for inclusion in AI recommendations — independent of Google rankings, website quality, reputation, and tenure.
Signal gap vs ranking gap. This is not a ranking problem. It is an entity visibility problem — AI systems surface entities with sufficient external confirmation signals.
No practice achieved cross-model visibility, indicating model-specific citation behaviour and no stable multi-model entity authority in this dataset.
A single strong indexed third-party source may be sufficient to move a practice from zero to measurable AI citation presence in at least one model.
The following data is from an independent third-party source and is not part of the AEOGeoAI dataset.
Recent research from Rutgers University–New Brunswick found that 74% of New Jersey residents have used AI tools, with more than a quarter reporting AI use at work. Despite widespread adoption, most users remain concerned about regulation and societal impact.
This creates a structural shift in local discovery behaviour: AI systems are already part of everyday decision-making for healthcare, services, and local recommendations.
In that context, absence from AI-generated recommendations effectively means absence from a channel used by the majority of potential patients in New Jersey.
Source: Rutgers University–New Brunswick. "Report Finds Broad Adoption of AI in New Jersey and Strong Support for Regulation." rutgers.edu
Practices without AI citation presence risk reduced discovery in AI-native search, lower recommendation inclusion rates, and increasing dependence on traditional SEO channels as AI-driven local discovery grows.
Based on observed patterns in this dataset, AI citation presence correlates with:
Third-party citation signals increase the likelihood of AI citation presence but do not guarantee inclusion in any specific AI-generated answer. AI model outputs are probabilistic and change over time.
We publish structured entity articles about NJ health practices on verified local publications already indexed by AI systems — creating the third-party citation signals AI relies on when constructing recommendation responses.
View NJ service and pricing →From $199 · One-time publication · No retainer · Bergen County + South Jersey Shore