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 higher chart-level accuracy for human-plus-AI than human-alone prescreening. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The excerpt supports the 76.1% versus 71.5% accuracy comparison but does not mention the claimed 355-chart sample size.

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 higher chart-level accuracy for human-plus-AI than 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 excerpt supports the 76.1% versus 71.5% accuracy comparison but does not mention the claimed 355-chart sample size.

  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

  Partial: sample size is absent from the excerpt.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
9d34c514		c8cb2c56

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

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

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	2108482e, c8cb2c56

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
18023	APPENDED
18024	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
18035	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
24452	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)