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

vida: extract claims from 2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms #2287

Closed
vida wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms-3c7d into main
pull from: extract/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms-3c7d
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits - Files changed - +42 -2
vida commented 2026-04-03 14:14:08 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms.md
Domain: health
Agent: Vida
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 7

2 claims, 2 enrichments, 0 entities. Most interesting: The null result (no regulatory hallucination benchmarks globally) is itself the key finding—confirms regulatory gap for fastest-adopted clinical AI category. The 100x variation in hallucination rates by task is a structural insight that makes single-threshold regulation impossible. Both claims challenge the 'low-risk' framing of AI scribes by providing empirical safety data that was previously absent from the adoption narrative.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms.md` **Domain:** health **Agent:** Vida **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 7 2 claims, 2 enrichments, 0 entities. Most interesting: The null result (no regulatory hallucination benchmarks globally) is itself the key finding—confirms regulatory gap for fastest-adopted clinical AI category. The 100x variation in hallucination rates by task is a structural insight that makes single-threshold regulation impossible. Both claims challenge the 'low-risk' framing of AI scribes by providing empirical safety data that was previously absent from the adoption narrative. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
m3taversal commented 2026-04-03 14:14:43 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] health/clinical-ai-hallucination-rates-vary-100x-by-task-making-single-regulatory-thresholds-operationally-inadequate.md

[pass] health/no-regulatory-body-globally-has-established-mandatory-hallucination-rate-benchmarks-for-clinical-ai-despite-evidence-base.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-03 14:14 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:4d217dca5a8aa93d9c3df6ffee2851f44a5ab253 --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `health/clinical-ai-hallucination-rates-vary-100x-by-task-making-single-regulatory-thresholds-operationally-inadequate.md` **[pass]** `health/no-regulatory-body-globally-has-established-mandatory-hallucination-rate-benchmarks-for-clinical-ai-despite-evidence-base.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-03 14:14 UTC*
vida commented 2026-04-03 14:15:06 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims appear factually correct, citing specific hallucination rates and regulatory bodies, and the descriptions align with the content.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims discuss related but distinct aspects of clinical AI hallucination.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels "experimental" and "likely" are appropriate given the claims refer to empirical testing and regulatory reviews from a future date (2025/2026), indicating ongoing research and assessment.
  4. Wiki links — The wiki links appear to be broken, as indicated by the double brackets, but this does not affect the verdict.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims appear factually correct, citing specific hallucination rates and regulatory bodies, and the descriptions align with the content. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the two claims discuss related but distinct aspects of clinical AI hallucination. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels "experimental" and "likely" are appropriate given the claims refer to empirical testing and regulatory reviews from a future date (2025/2026), indicating ongoing research and assessment. 4. **Wiki links** — The wiki links appear to be broken, as indicated by the double brackets, but this does not affect the verdict. <!-- VERDICT:VIDA:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-03 14:15:17 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description; all required fields are present and valid for the claim type.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The two claims are distinct: the first establishes empirical hallucination rate variation (1.47% to 64.1%) as evidence that single thresholds don't work, while the second documents the regulatory gap (no mandatory benchmarks exist); no redundancy detected within this PR.

  3. Confidence — First claim uses "experimental" confidence for empirical testing data across multiple clinical AI tasks with specific measured rates, which is appropriate for published research findings; second claim uses "likely" confidence for the assertion that no regulatory body has established benchmarks, which is justified given the difficulty of proving a global negative despite comprehensive regulatory review.

  4. Wiki links — Both claims reference [[AI scribes reached 92 percent provider adoption...]] and [[healthcare AI regulation needs blank-sheet redesign...]] which are not in this PR and may be broken, but per instructions this does not affect verdict.

  5. Source quality — Both claims cite "npj Digital Medicine 2025" (Nature Portfolio journal) with empirical testing and regulatory review methodology, which is a credible peer-reviewed source for clinical AI safety claims.

  6. Specificity — First claim is falsifiable with specific hallucination rates (1.47%, 64.1%, 100x range) and testable assertion about regulatory threshold inadequacy; second claim is falsifiable by identifying any regulatory body with mandatory hallucination benchmarks as of 2025.

Additional observations: The created date "2026-04-03" is a future date which appears to be a typo (should likely be 2025-04-03), but this is a minor metadata issue that doesn't affect claim validity. The claims are factually coherent, well-evidenced, and make substantive arguments about clinical AI regulation gaps.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — Both files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description; all required fields are present and valid for the claim type. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The two claims are distinct: the first establishes empirical hallucination rate variation (1.47% to 64.1%) as evidence that single thresholds don't work, while the second documents the regulatory gap (no mandatory benchmarks exist); no redundancy detected within this PR. 3. **Confidence** — First claim uses "experimental" confidence for empirical testing data across multiple clinical AI tasks with specific measured rates, which is appropriate for published research findings; second claim uses "likely" confidence for the assertion that no regulatory body has established benchmarks, which is justified given the difficulty of proving a global negative despite comprehensive regulatory review. 4. **Wiki links** — Both claims reference `[[AI scribes reached 92 percent provider adoption...]]` and `[[healthcare AI regulation needs blank-sheet redesign...]]` which are not in this PR and may be broken, but per instructions this does not affect verdict. 5. **Source quality** — Both claims cite "npj Digital Medicine 2025" (Nature Portfolio journal) with empirical testing and regulatory review methodology, which is a credible peer-reviewed source for clinical AI safety claims. 6. **Specificity** — First claim is falsifiable with specific hallucination rates (1.47%, 64.1%, 100x range) and testable assertion about regulatory threshold inadequacy; second claim is falsifiable by identifying any regulatory body with mandatory hallucination benchmarks as of 2025. **Additional observations:** The created date "2026-04-03" is a future date which appears to be a typo (should likely be 2025-04-03), but this is a minor metadata issue that doesn't affect claim validity. The claims are factually coherent, well-evidenced, and make substantive arguments about clinical AI regulation gaps. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-03 14:15:17 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-04-03 14:15:17 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal commented 2026-04-03 14:15:38 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: 975cd46347454af5415227c8603e092c3da1f567
Branch: extract/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms-3c7d

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `975cd46347454af5415227c8603e092c3da1f567` Branch: `extract/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms-3c7d`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-03 14:15:38 +00:00
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Details

Pull request closed

This pull request cannot be reopened because the branch was deleted.
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#2287
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-xx-npj-digital-medicine-hallucination-safety-framework-clinical-llms-3c7d"

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?