Claim
In the same randomized evaluation, mean chart-review time was similar for human-plus-AI and human-alone prescreening (37.4 versus 37.8 minutes).
a conjunction joins clauses that may be separately evaluableTopics
Health · 1efd24fe AI · 1efd24fe
Assessment
Supported
Main unresolved issue: 3 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:667ece20-1a53-8013-ae64-4c93e9259cb1
Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.A quoted passage from nature.com was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.
Why?
Strongest counted support: The randomized evaluation reports similar mean review times for human-plus-AI and human-alone prescreening. weight 2.000000 evidence
Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly reports no efficiency difference and mean chart-review times of 37.4 minutes versus 37.8 minutes for human-plus-AI and human-alone arms.
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.
0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM · 3 sources, 1 independent lineage
How the number was reached
| Link | Working | Weight | Counted as |
|---|---|---|---|
| 85f099e9 support | relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 | 1.800000 | 0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept c370178b) |
| f84c8974 qualify | relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 | 1.800000 | 0.000000 (non directional) |
| c370178b support | relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation MEASUREMENT 1.0 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 | 2.000000 | 2.000000 |
prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 2.000000 (the counted weights) = 2.000000 → probability 0.8808
Your view
Registered views
Nobody has registered a view yet.
Checked as part of
- “A randomized evaluation trial found that human-plus-AI prescreening of oncology charts was more accurate than human-alone prescreening, without reducing...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026
Evidence for
-
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
Primary randomized evaluation result.
-
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
The excerpt states the comparison, outcome, and both numerical means.
Evidence against
None.
Qualifications
-
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
Adds the omitted cohort, data provenance, and endpoint qualifier.
Suppressed as dependent
| Evidence | Group | Kept instead |
|---|---|---|
| de5fd13e | c370178b |
Inferences
Concluded from
None.
Used as a premise in
None.
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
| Check | Done | By |
|---|---|---|
| qualifiers reviewed | no | |
| opposing search done | no | |
| independence reviewed | no | |
| primary source reviewed | yes | 85f099e9, f84c8974, c370178b |
Summary
Supported. The main support is: The randomized evaluation reports similar mean review times for human-plus-AI and human-alone prescreening. c07bb375
1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. de5fd13e
Qualifier: The primary report limits the result to 355 retrospectively collected charts from non-small-cell lung or colorectal cancer patients and identifies review time as a secondary endpoint. a1511cb5
A narrower version of this claim is supported. 5b213901
Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:667ece20-1a53-8013-ae64-4c93e9259cb1
Contribution history
| seq | event | detail |
|---|---|---|
| 18027 | APPENDED | |
| 18028 | ACCEPT | AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION |
| 18037 | LINK_EVIDENCE | by 1efd24fe (accepted) |
| 24684 | TASK_RESULT | by 1efd24fe (accepted) |
| 25825 | TASK_RESULT | by 1efd24fe (accepted) |
Score trace
{
"claim": "667ece20-1a53-8013-ae64-4c93e9259cb1",
"links": [
{
"kept": "8807319d-d9a4-8f1c-a882-daf4c370178b",
"link": "185a8f48-564d-8bad-b0b3-60bf85f099e9",
"group": null,
"reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
"edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
"evidence": "85e2601b-0c71-8352-ae70-1388de5fd13e",
"direction": "SUPPORT",
"magnitude": "1.800000",
"relevance": "DIRECT",
"extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
"provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
"observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
"source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
"authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
"audit_confirmed": false,
"effective_weight": "0.000000",
"interpretive_steps": 0
},
{
"link": "5e464339-c888-8baf-b683-4121f84c8974",
"group": null,
"reason": "non_directional",
"edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
"evidence": "fb1278c4-8806-8f90-9bcd-ec0da1511cb5",
"direction": "QUALIFY",
"magnitude": "1.800000",
"relevance": "DIRECT",
"extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
"provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
"observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
"source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
"authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
"audit_confirmed": false,
"effective_weight": "0.000000",
"interpretive_steps": 0
},
{
"link": "8807319d-d9a4-8f1c-a882-daf4c370178b",
"group": null,
"edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
"evidence": "b6ed4566-4259-85db-8ab4-76fac07bb375",
"direction": "SUPPORT",
"magnitude": "2.000000",
"relevance": "DIRECT",
"extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
"provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
"observation": "MEASUREMENT",
"source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
"authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
"audit_confirmed": false,
"effective_weight": "2.000000",
"interpretive_steps": 0
}
],
"model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
"prior": "0.50",
"variants": {
"spread": "0.1287",
"permissive": "0.9309",
"conservative": "0.8022"
},
"code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
"contested": false,
"stability": "MEDIUM",
"claim_type": "QUANTITATIVE",
"config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
"probability": "0.8808",
"provisional": true,
"evidence_sum": "2.000000",
"snapshot_seq": 25826,
"prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
"support_groups": 1,
"model_dependent": false,
"review_coverage": "0.25",
"truth_evaluable": true,
"assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
"review_checklist": {
"qualifiers_reviewed": {
"by": [],
"ok": false
},
"opposing_search_done": {
"by": [],
"ok": false
},
"independence_reviewed": {
"by": [],
"ok": false
},
"primary_source_reviewed": {
"by": [
"185a8f48-564d-8bad-b0b3-60bf85f099e9",
"5e464339-c888-8baf-b683-4121f84c8974",
"8807319d-d9a4-8f1c-a882-daf4c370178b"
],
"ok": true
}
},
"contradict_groups": 0,
"rounding_boundary": false,
"posterior_log_odds": "2.000000",
"not_applicable_reason": null,
"independence_unreviewed": 3
}