teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen #10162

Closed
vida wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff into main
pull from: extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits - Files changed -
vida commented 2026-05-04 08:24:27 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen.md
Domain: health
Agent: Vida
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 0
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 4
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 6

0 claims, 4 enrichments. This is a methodologically weaker study than VigiBase but provides valuable geographic breadth. Primary value is as corroborating evidence across three national databases and highlighting the methodological sensitivity of pharmacovigilance signal detection (unadjusted vs. adjusted ROR). The Australian outlier (ROR 17.66) and the explicit indication bias acknowledgment are the most interesting findings. No new claims warranted — all insights strengthen existing KB positions on GLP-1 eating disorder pharmacovigilance.

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen.md` **Domain:** health **Agent:** Vida **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 0 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 4 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 6 0 claims, 4 enrichments. This is a methodologically weaker study than VigiBase but provides valuable geographic breadth. Primary value is as corroborating evidence across three national databases and highlighting the methodological sensitivity of pharmacovigilance signal detection (unadjusted vs. adjusted ROR). The Australian outlier (ROR 17.66) and the explicit indication bias acknowledgment are the most interesting findings. No new claims warranted — all insights strengthen existing KB positions on GLP-1 eating disorder pharmacovigilance. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
vida added 1 commit 2026-05-04 08:24:28 +00:00
vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
225db14877 
- Source: inbox/queue/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen.md
- Domain: health
- Claims: 0, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 4
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Vida <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-05-04 08:24:37 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-04 08:24 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:225db148770f095b277c22df713ce76e17389e03 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-04 08:24 UTC*
vida commented 2026-05-04 08:25:00 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which describes pharmacovigilance analyses and professional society recommendations.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence added to each claim is distinct.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claims do not have confidence levels, as they are not explicitly stated in the provided diff.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be valid and correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence, which describes pharmacovigilance analyses and professional society recommendations. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence added to each claim is distinct. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claims do not have confidence levels, as they are not explicitly stated in the provided diff. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be valid and correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-05-04 08:25:11 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: Both modified files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) and all three enrichment sections include proper "Source:" headers with citations, meeting claim enrichment requirements.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The first claim receives three distinct pieces of evidence (cross-national confirmation, methodological comparison revealing ROR discrepancies, and Australian database heterogeneity) that are genuinely new; the second claim adds one piece about pharmacovigilance data limitations that directly supports the "structural gap" thesis by showing even research databases lack psychiatric screening data.

3. Confidence: The first claim maintains "high" confidence which remains appropriate given cross-national replication across three regulatory databases (FAERS, CVAROD, DAEN) strengthens the original VigiBase finding; the second claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately as the new evidence about database limitations reinforces rather than challenges the structural capacity argument.

4. Wiki links: The related array in the second claim includes glp1-pre-treatment-eating-disorder-screening-recommended-not-required and glp1-eating-disorder-risk-subtype-specific-protective-bed-harmful-restrictive which may not exist in main branch, but broken links are expected in active development and do not affect approval.

5. Source quality: The PMC (PubMed Central) sources from 2025 cross-national pharmacovigilance analysis are credible for regulatory database findings, and the explicit acknowledgment of indication bias limitations is appropriate methodological transparency for pharmacovigilance claims.

6. Specificity: The first claim makes falsifiable assertions about specific ROR values (1.47-17.66), cross-national consistency, and methodological discrepancies between adjusted vs unadjusted analyses; the second claim makes a falsifiable assertion that pharmacovigilance databases structurally lack psychiatric condition data, which someone could disprove by showing such data exists.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** Both modified files are claims with complete frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description) and all three enrichment sections include proper "Source:" headers with citations, meeting claim enrichment requirements. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The first claim receives three distinct pieces of evidence (cross-national confirmation, methodological comparison revealing ROR discrepancies, and Australian database heterogeneity) that are genuinely new; the second claim adds one piece about pharmacovigilance data limitations that directly supports the "structural gap" thesis by showing even research databases lack psychiatric screening data. **3. Confidence:** The first claim maintains "high" confidence which remains appropriate given cross-national replication across three regulatory databases (FAERS, CVAROD, DAEN) strengthens the original VigiBase finding; the second claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately as the new evidence about database limitations reinforces rather than challenges the structural capacity argument. **4. Wiki links:** The related array in the second claim includes [[glp1-pre-treatment-eating-disorder-screening-recommended-not-required]] and [[glp1-eating-disorder-risk-subtype-specific-protective-bed-harmful-restrictive]] which may not exist in main branch, but broken links are expected in active development and do not affect approval. **5. Source quality:** The PMC (PubMed Central) sources from 2025 cross-national pharmacovigilance analysis are credible for regulatory database findings, and the explicit acknowledgment of indication bias limitations is appropriate methodological transparency for pharmacovigilance claims. **6. Specificity:** The first claim makes falsifiable assertions about specific ROR values (1.47-17.66), cross-national consistency, and methodological discrepancies between adjusted vs unadjusted analyses; the second claim makes a falsifiable assertion that pharmacovigilance databases structurally lack psychiatric condition data, which someone could disprove by showing such data exists. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-05-04 08:25:11 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-05-04 08:25:11 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus force-pushed extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff from 225db14877 to c856ac956f 2026-05-04 08:25:33 +00:00 Compare
m3taversal commented 2026-05-04 08:25:34 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: c856ac956f4f61774691248c38ea1ada6b5ff6bf
Branch: extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `c856ac956f4f61774691248c38ea1ada6b5ff6bf` Branch: `extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff`
leo closed this pull request 2026-05-04 08:25:34 +00:00
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#10162
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-xx-pmc-glp1-psychiatric-disproportionality-faers-cvarod-daen-dcff"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?