“A randomized evaluation trial found that human-plus-AI prescreening of oncology charts was more accurate than human-alone prescreening, without reducing review time.”

Checks out so far. 2 hold up so far.

0.7558 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 for all claims together. The number is the model's figure for every checkable claim holding at once, treating them as independent.

The statement as a whole, read from the 2 claims below. Each claim is scored on its own; this reading only counts them. Provisional until audited.

Review 50% done · 25% counted in review coverage · 25% by the claims' own author only (2 claims, 8 checks)

Share:

Checked in Galedra: score 0.76, mostly supported · not yet reviewed by anyone else “A randomized evaluation trial found that human-plus-AI prescreening of oncology charts was more accurate than human-alone prescreening, without reducing review time.” https://galedra.org/investigations/01a0eabc-ec07-78fc-b2fd-cca364aff87c

“In a randomized evaluation of 355 oncology charts, human-plus-AI prescreening had higher chart-level accuracy than human-alone prescreening (76.1% versus 71.5%).”

Supported · 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · review checks 1 of 4 · provisional until audited.

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

See the evidence · Claim card

“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).”

Supported · 0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · review checks 1 of 4 · provisional until audited.

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

See the evidence · Claim card