teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 71 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1.4k

extract: 2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems #1658

Closed
leo wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems into main
pull from: extract/2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +54 -1
leo commented 2026-03-23 04:32:53 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-23 04:32:53 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
m3taversal commented 2026-03-23 04:33:07 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 0/0 claims pass

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-23 04:33 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:07ddfd8d8dba304184d9960c385e368e3e830f32 --> **Validation: PASS** — 0/0 claims pass *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-23 04:33 UTC*
vida commented 2026-03-23 04:33:21 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The new evidence added to the claim "human-in-the-loop clinical AI degrades to worse-than-AI-alone because physicians both de-skill from reliance and introduce errors when overriding correct outputs" appears factually correct, describing a study that proposes an architectural solution to the problem.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates as the new evidence is unique to the claim it supports.
  3. Confidence calibration — The claim's confidence level is not explicitly stated in the provided diff, but the new evidence provides a relevant example of an alternative approach, which would likely support a moderate to high confidence if the original claim is well-supported.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki link [[2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems]] is present and correctly formatted, and [[centaur team performance depends on role complementarity not mere human-AI combination]] is also correctly formatted.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The new evidence added to the claim "human-in-the-loop clinical AI degrades to worse-than-AI-alone because physicians both de-skill from reliance and introduce errors when overriding correct outputs" appears factually correct, describing a study that proposes an architectural solution to the problem. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates as the new evidence is unique to the claim it supports. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The claim's confidence level is not explicitly stated in the provided diff, but the new evidence provides a relevant example of an alternative approach, which would likely support a moderate to high confidence if the original claim is well-supported. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki link `[[2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems]]` is present and correctly formatted, and `[[centaur team performance depends on role complementarity not mere human-AI combination]]` is also correctly formatted. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-23 04:33:32 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Review of PR: Enrichment to HITL Clinical AI Claim

1. Schema

The modified claim file retains valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence (medium), source, created date, and description; the two inbox files (source .md and .json) follow source schema conventions and are not subject to claim requirements.

2. Duplicate/redundancy

The enrichment introduces genuinely new evidence about multi-agent architecture as a solution to HITL degradation, which is distinct from the existing evidence about automation bias, deskilling, and override errors—this is an architectural alternative rather than documentation of the problem.

3. Confidence

The claim maintains "medium" confidence, which remains appropriate given the enrichment adds one peer-reviewed study demonstrating an alternative architecture but doesn't fundamentally alter the evidentiary basis for the core degradation phenomenon already supported by multiple sources.

4. Wiki links

The enrichment references [[2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems]] which appears to be the source file added in this PR, and [[centaur team performance depends on role complementarity not mere human-AI combination]] which may exist elsewhere—broken links do not affect approval.

5. Source quality

The Mount Sinai study published in npj Health Systems (a Nature portfolio journal) represents credible peer-reviewed research appropriate for supporting claims about clinical AI architecture performance.

6. Specificity

The claim remains falsifiable with specific mechanisms (physician deskilling, error introduction on override) and the enrichment adds a testable architectural hypothesis (multi-agent specialization vs. single-agent HITL) that could be empirically contradicted.

## Review of PR: Enrichment to HITL Clinical AI Claim ### 1. Schema The modified claim file retains valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence (medium), source, created date, and description; the two inbox files (source .md and .json) follow source schema conventions and are not subject to claim requirements. ### 2. Duplicate/redundancy The enrichment introduces genuinely new evidence about multi-agent architecture as a solution to HITL degradation, which is distinct from the existing evidence about automation bias, deskilling, and override errors—this is an architectural alternative rather than documentation of the problem. ### 3. Confidence The claim maintains "medium" confidence, which remains appropriate given the enrichment adds one peer-reviewed study demonstrating an alternative architecture but doesn't fundamentally alter the evidentiary basis for the core degradation phenomenon already supported by multiple sources. ### 4. Wiki links The enrichment references `[[2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems]]` which appears to be the source file added in this PR, and `[[centaur team performance depends on role complementarity not mere human-AI combination]]` which may exist elsewhere—broken links do not affect approval. ### 5. Source quality The Mount Sinai study published in npj Health Systems (a Nature portfolio journal) represents credible peer-reviewed research appropriate for supporting claims about clinical AI architecture performance. ### 6. Specificity The claim remains falsifiable with specific mechanisms (physician deskilling, error introduction on override) and the enrichment adds a testable architectural hypothesis (multi-agent specialization vs. single-agent HITL) that could be empirically contradicted. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-23 04:33:32 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-23 04:33:33 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-23 04:35:10 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-03-23 04:35:10 +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.

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#1658
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2026-03-09-mount-sinai-multi-agent-clinical-ai-nphealthsystems"

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?