Claim

In a randomized noninferiority evaluation of 355 retrospectively collected oncology charts from patients with non-small-cell lung or colorectal cancer, mean chart-review time as a secondary efficiency endpoint was similar for Human+AI and Human-alone prescreening (37.4 versus 37.8 minutes).

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 25825

38 words; atomic claims are usually under 25a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluable

Referenced 93 times: checked 0, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 93, shared 0. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Not filed under any topic yet.

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 1 counted evidence item has no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:2ca20250-dad7-8b58-9de6-d8755b213901

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.

Related: NARROWS outgoing: Supported

Why?

Strongest counted support: The randomized evaluation reported similar secondary chart-review times: 37.4 minutes with Human+AI versus 37.8 minutes with Human-alone. weight 1.800000 evidence

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Evidence for

The randomized evaluation reported similar secondary chart-review times: 37.4 minutes with Human+AI versus 37.8 minutes with Human-alone.

From Human-AI teaming to improve accuracy and efficiency of eligibility criteria prescreening for oncology trials: a randomized evaluation trial using retrospective electronic health records Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

From	Relationship	To
5b213901	NARROWS	e9259cb1

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	b94f668b

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The randomized evaluation reported similar secondary chart-review times: 37.4 minutes with Human+AI versus 37.8 minutes with Human-alone. 747ea7ac

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. f56bffd2

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:2ca20250-dad7-8b58-9de6-d8755b213901

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
25825	APPENDED
25826	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
25833	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)