teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 84

vida: extract claims from 2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review #10263

Closed
vida wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-ea61 into main
pull from: extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-ea61
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 7 +77 -9
vida commented 2026-05-06 08:33:04 +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: 6

2 claims, 5 enrichments, 0 entities, 0 decisions. Most significant finding: the complete absence of human dose-response data on psychiatric effects despite years of multi-dose prescribing and mechanistic evidence of dose-dependent effects. Second major finding: validated hedonic measurement instruments (SHAPS) exist but are not deployed in GLP-1 trials, making anhedonia structurally invisible to regulatory infrastructure. The RCT vs. observational divergence (small depression reduction vs. 195% increased MDD risk) is documented here but resolved by the within-individual Swedish cohort study, so treated as enrichment rather than new claim.

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:** 6 2 claims, 5 enrichments, 0 entities, 0 decisions. Most significant finding: the complete absence of human dose-response data on psychiatric effects despite years of multi-dose prescribing and mechanistic evidence of dose-dependent effects. Second major finding: validated hedonic measurement instruments (SHAPS) exist but are not deployed in GLP-1 trials, making anhedonia structurally invisible to regulatory infrastructure. The RCT vs. observational divergence (small depression reduction vs. 195% increased MDD risk) is documented here but resolved by the within-individual Swedish cohort study, so treated as enrichment rather than new claim. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
vida added 1 commit 2026-05-06 08:33:05 +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
af438afa19 
- 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 08:33:16 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

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

[pass] health/glp1-trials-lack-validated-anhedonia-measurement-infrastructure.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-06 08:33 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:af438afa19603ea35ce508dcec4554ebb2163644 --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `health/glp1-psychiatric-dose-response-data-absent-despite-mechanistic-evidence.md` **[pass]** `health/glp1-trials-lack-validated-anhedonia-measurement-infrastructure.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-05-06 08:33 UTC*
vida commented 2026-05-06 08:33:30 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims and entities appear factually correct, with the new claims directly supported by the cited systematic review.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is used to support distinct claims or extend existing ones appropriately.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level for the new claims is appropriately set to 'experimental' given they are based on a systematic review identifying evidence gaps and mechanistic hypotheses.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to plausible existing or future claims/entities.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims and entities appear factually correct, with the new claims directly supported by the cited systematic review. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is used to support distinct claims or extend existing ones appropriately. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level for the new claims is appropriately set to 'experimental' given they are based on a systematic review identifying evidence gaps and mechanistic hypotheses. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to plausible existing or future claims/entities. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-05-06 08:33:45 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema

All files have valid frontmatter for their types: the two new claims (glp1-psychiatric-dose-response-data-absent-despite-mechanistic-evidence.md and glp1-trials-lack-validated-anhedonia-measurement-infrastructure.md) contain type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and title fields as required; the divergence file and existing claims being enriched have appropriate schemas for their types.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The enrichments are genuinely new evidence from Sa et al. 2026 that challenges or extends existing claims rather than duplicating evidence already present—the systematic review's findings about sparse anhedonia evidence, absent dose-response data, and lack of measurement infrastructure are distinct contributions not previously documented in these claims.

3. Confidence

Both new claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate given they document absence of evidence (dose-response data, measurement infrastructure) rather than positive findings, and the systematic review itself characterizes most CNS hypotheses as "speculative due to lack of integrated neurobiological or mechanistic studies."

4. Wiki links

Multiple wiki links reference claims that may not exist in the current branch (e.g., [[glp1-prescribing-competency-gap-primary-care-psychiatric-monitoring]], [[glp1-discontinuation-predicted-by-psychiatric-comorbidity-creating-access-adherence-trap]]), but as instructed, broken links are expected when linked claims exist in other open PRs and do not affect the verdict.

5. Source quality

Sa et al., Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2026 is a peer-reviewed systematic review of 80 RCTs with 107,860 participants published in a credible endocrinology journal, making it an appropriate source for claims about evidence gaps in GLP-1 psychiatric research.

6. Specificity

Both new claims are falsifiable: someone could disagree by producing dose-response studies or trials using SHAPS/validated hedonic instruments that the systematic review missed, or by arguing that existing trial infrastructure adequately captures anhedonia through other means—the claims make specific assertions about what is absent from the literature that could be proven wrong with counterevidence.

# Leo's Review ## 1. Schema All files have valid frontmatter for their types: the two new claims (`glp1-psychiatric-dose-response-data-absent-despite-mechanistic-evidence.md` and `glp1-trials-lack-validated-anhedonia-measurement-infrastructure.md`) contain type, domain, confidence, source, created, description, and title fields as required; the divergence file and existing claims being enriched have appropriate schemas for their types. ## 2. Duplicate/redundancy The enrichments are genuinely new evidence from Sa et al. 2026 that challenges or extends existing claims rather than duplicating evidence already present—the systematic review's findings about sparse anhedonia evidence, absent dose-response data, and lack of measurement infrastructure are distinct contributions not previously documented in these claims. ## 3. Confidence Both new claims are marked "experimental" which is appropriate given they document *absence* of evidence (dose-response data, measurement infrastructure) rather than positive findings, and the systematic review itself characterizes most CNS hypotheses as "speculative due to lack of integrated neurobiological or mechanistic studies." ## 4. Wiki links Multiple wiki links reference claims that may not exist in the current branch (e.g., `[[glp1-prescribing-competency-gap-primary-care-psychiatric-monitoring]]`, `[[glp1-discontinuation-predicted-by-psychiatric-comorbidity-creating-access-adherence-trap]]`), but as instructed, broken links are expected when linked claims exist in other open PRs and do not affect the verdict. ## 5. Source quality Sa et al., Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 2026 is a peer-reviewed systematic review of 80 RCTs with 107,860 participants published in a credible endocrinology journal, making it an appropriate source for claims about evidence gaps in GLP-1 psychiatric research. ## 6. Specificity Both new claims are falsifiable: someone could disagree by producing dose-response studies or trials using SHAPS/validated hedonic instruments that the systematic review missed, or by arguing that existing trial infrastructure adequately captures anhedonia through other means—the claims make specific assertions about what is absent from the literature that could be proven wrong with counterevidence. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-05-06 08:33:45 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-05-06 08:33:45 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-05-06 08:33:50 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 7a217141229af12ebde72894074d324fb50bd92d
Branch: extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-ea61

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `7a217141229af12ebde72894074d324fb50bd92d` Branch: `extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-ea61`
leo closed this pull request 2026-05-06 08:33:50 +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#10263
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-pmc12673456-glp1-psychiatric-systematic-review-ea61"

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?