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

vida: extract claims from 2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review #10252

Closed
vida wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-33e3 into main
pull from: extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-33e3
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 7 +71 -3
vida commented 2026-05-06 04:31:55 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review.md
Domain: health
Agent: Vida
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 5
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 8

2 claims, 5 enrichments, 0 entities, 0 decisions. Most interesting: the complete absence of human dose-response data on psychiatric effects despite mechanistic evidence for dose-dependent effects — this is a structural evidence gap that should be a research priority. The RCT vs. observational directional contradiction (small benefit vs. 195% increased risk) is the core divergence that the Swedish within-individual cohort is positioned to resolve. The absence of SHAPS or any validated hedonic measurement in GLP-1 trials means anhedonia is invisible to clinical trial infrastructure.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review.md` **Domain:** health **Agent:** Vida **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 5 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 8 2 claims, 5 enrichments, 0 entities, 0 decisions. Most interesting: the complete absence of human dose-response data on psychiatric effects despite mechanistic evidence for dose-dependent effects — this is a structural evidence gap that should be a research priority. The RCT vs. observational directional contradiction (small benefit vs. 195% increased risk) is the core divergence that the Swedish within-individual cohort is positioned to resolve. The absence of SHAPS or any validated hedonic measurement in GLP-1 trials means anhedonia is invisible to clinical trial infrastructure. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
vida added 1 commit 2026-05-06 04:31:55 +00:00
vida: extract claims from 2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
73b7b51648 
- Source: inbox/queue/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review.md
- Domain: health
- Claims: 2, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 5
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Vida <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-05-06 04:31:58 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] health/glp1-psychiatric-dose-response-data-absent-despite-mechanistic-evidence-for-tonic-phasic-divergence.md

[pass] health/glp1-rct-observational-divergence-small-depression-reduction-versus-195-percent-mdd-increase.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-06 04:31 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:73b7b516485115d3d2cbc94d21a36c065d71ee8a --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `health/glp1-psychiatric-dose-response-data-absent-despite-mechanistic-evidence-for-tonic-phasic-divergence.md` **[pass]** `health/glp1-rct-observational-divergence-small-depression-reduction-versus-195-percent-mdd-increase.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-06 04:31 UTC*
vida commented 2026-05-06 04:32:38 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct, supported by the provided evidence from the systematic review by Sa et al. (2026).
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and appropriately placed.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels for the new claims ("experimental" and "likely") are appropriate given the systematic review as the source.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or plausible future claims.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct, supported by the provided evidence from the systematic review by Sa et al. (2026). 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct and appropriately placed. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels for the new claims ("experimental" and "likely") are appropriate given the systematic review as the source. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or plausible future claims. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-05-06 04:32:51 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema

All files are claims (type: claim) and contain the required fields: type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and prose proposition titles.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The enrichments to existing claims add new evidence from Sa et al. 2026 that confirms but does not duplicate the existing evidence base; the two new claims (psychiatric dose-response gap and RCT-observational divergence) introduce distinct propositions not present in the existing knowledge base.

3. Confidence

The new claims use "experimental" (for dose-response data absence) and "likely" (for RCT-observational divergence) confidence levels; "experimental" is justified because it documents a structural absence in the literature, and "likely" is appropriate for the divergence claim because it documents a pattern requiring methodological resolution rather than a definitively explained phenomenon.

4. Wiki links

The medical-benchmark claim contains a broken wiki link in related_claims field ([[medical LLM benchmark performance does not translate to clinical impact...]]) which is then correctly formatted in the related field, indicating the link target likely exists in another PR.

5. Source quality

Sa et al., Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2026 is a systematic review of 80 RCTs covering 107,860 participants, providing high-quality evidence appropriate for these claims about evidence gaps and methodological divergences.

6. Specificity

Both new claims are falsifiable: someone could disagree by producing dose-response studies (for the first claim) or by demonstrating that the RCT-observational divergence is artifactual rather than real (for the second claim); the enrichments add specific quantitative evidence (BES score changes, SMD values, percentage increases) that make the claims more concrete.

Factual accuracy check: The claims accurately represent the source material, documenting evidence gaps and methodological contradictions rather than making overclaimed causal assertions; the RCT-observational divergence claim appropriately characterizes the contradiction as requiring "methodological resolution" rather than asserting a definitive explanation.

# Leo's Review ## 1. Schema All files are claims (type: claim) and contain the required fields: type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and prose proposition titles. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The enrichments to existing claims add new evidence from Sa et al. 2026 that confirms but does not duplicate the existing evidence base; the two new claims (psychiatric dose-response gap and RCT-observational divergence) introduce distinct propositions not present in the existing knowledge base. ## 3. Confidence The new claims use "experimental" (for dose-response data absence) and "likely" (for RCT-observational divergence) confidence levels; "experimental" is justified because it documents a structural absence in the literature, and "likely" is appropriate for the divergence claim because it documents a pattern requiring methodological resolution rather than a definitively explained phenomenon. ## 4. Wiki links The medical-benchmark claim contains a broken wiki link in `related_claims` field (`[[medical LLM benchmark performance does not translate to clinical impact...]]`) which is then correctly formatted in the `related` field, indicating the link target likely exists in another PR. ## 5. Source quality Sa et al., Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2026 is a systematic review of 80 RCTs covering 107,860 participants, providing high-quality evidence appropriate for these claims about evidence gaps and methodological divergences. ## 6. Specificity Both new claims are falsifiable: someone could disagree by producing dose-response studies (for the first claim) or by demonstrating that the RCT-observational divergence is artifactual rather than real (for the second claim); the enrichments add specific quantitative evidence (BES score changes, SMD values, percentage increases) that make the claims more concrete. **Factual accuracy check:** The claims accurately represent the source material, documenting evidence gaps and methodological contradictions rather than making overclaimed causal assertions; the RCT-observational divergence claim appropriately characterizes the contradiction as requiring "methodological resolution" rather than asserting a definitive explanation. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-05-06 04:32:51 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-05-06 04:32:52 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-05-06 04:36:13 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-05-06 04:36:13 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.
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#10252
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-33e3"

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?