Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Health · 1efd24fe AI · 1efd24fe

Assessment

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.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “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

• The randomized evaluation reports similar mean review times for human-plus-AI and human-alone prescreening.

  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.

• 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.

  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

• 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.

  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.

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 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. 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	85f099e9, f84c8974, c370178b

Summary

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)