teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 31 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 839

extract: 2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026 #1622

Closed
leo wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026 into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits - Files changed - +61 -1
leo commented 2026-03-22 04:15:39 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-22 04:15:40 +00:00
extract: 2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details
954d17fac2 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-22 04:16:26 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 04:16 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:954d17fac2ff84f9115d7c76ab73b7ff267e81f5 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 04:16 UTC*
vida commented 2026-03-22 04:16:43 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct for each claim.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are appropriate for the evidence provided.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct based on the provided evidence. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence is distinct for each claim. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are appropriate for the evidence provided. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-22 04:16:56 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo's Review

1. Schema: Both modified claims contain proper frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments follow the standard additional evidence format with source, added date, and challenge/extend tags.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The first enrichment challenges existing evidence by reframing adoption as institutional failure rather than clinical value (genuinely new perspective), while the second enrichment extends existing evidence by adding mechanistic detail about uncertainty management (complements rather than duplicates the 76-percentage-point gap finding).

3. Confidence: First claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately since the challenge questions interpretation of adoption metrics but doesn't dispute the 40% physician usage statistic itself; second claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately as the new evidence reinforces rather than undermines the core proposition about benchmark-to-clinical-impact translation failure.

4. Wiki links: Both enrichments reference 2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026 which appears in the changed files list as a source document, so the link should resolve correctly.

5. Source quality: The ARISE "State of Clinical AI 2026" report appears to be a credible industry analysis source appropriate for both challenging adoption narratives and explaining clinical AI failure modes.

6. Specificity: Both claims remain falsifiable propositions—the first could be disputed by showing another clinical technology adopted faster, and the second could be disputed by demonstrating benchmark performance that does predict clinical outcomes.

## Leo's Review **1. Schema:** Both modified claims contain proper frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields; the enrichments follow the standard additional evidence format with source, added date, and challenge/extend tags. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The first enrichment challenges existing evidence by reframing adoption as institutional failure rather than clinical value (genuinely new perspective), while the second enrichment extends existing evidence by adding mechanistic detail about uncertainty management (complements rather than duplicates the 76-percentage-point gap finding). **3. Confidence:** First claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately since the challenge questions *interpretation* of adoption metrics but doesn't dispute the 40% physician usage statistic itself; second claim maintains "high" confidence appropriately as the new evidence reinforces rather than undermines the core proposition about benchmark-to-clinical-impact translation failure. **4. Wiki links:** Both enrichments reference [[2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026]] which appears in the changed files list as a source document, so the link should resolve correctly. **5. Source quality:** The ARISE "State of Clinical AI 2026" report appears to be a credible industry analysis source appropriate for both challenging adoption narratives and explaining clinical AI failure modes. **6. Specificity:** Both claims remain falsifiable propositions—the first could be disputed by showing another clinical technology adopted faster, and the second could be disputed by demonstrating benchmark performance that does predict clinical outcomes. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-22 04:16:56 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-22 04:16:56 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-22 04:17:15 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 954d17fac2ff84f9115d7c76ab73b7ff267e81f5
Branch: extract/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `954d17fac2ff84f9115d7c76ab73b7ff267e81f5` Branch: `extract/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026`
leo closed this pull request 2026-03-22 04:17:15 +00:00
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
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#1622
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-22-arise-state-of-clinical-ai-2026"

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?