For research and information-retrieval evaluation only. Not a medical device. Not for diagnosis, treatment, or patient care.

Results

Evidence & citations

Claim-level citation grading: for every atomic claim in a generated answer, does the cited document exist, get retrieved, and actually support (or contradict) the claim?

Citation support breakdown

supported112
89.6% of 125 claims
contradicted9
7.2% of 125 claims
unverifiable4
3.2% of 125 claims

Overall support rate: 89.6% (n=125 graded claims across all 45 tasks, total generation+grading cost $0.015966).

Grader caveat: the automated citation grader’s “contradicts” label is not fully trustworthy even after a documented fix — a manual audit found only 33% precision (2/6) under the original prompt, raised to 80% (4/5) after tightening it to stop conflating “passage is silent” with “passage contradicts.” One residual failure case remains uncorrected. Treat the contradicted count above as grader output, not ground truth, without expanding the manual validation subset further.

Example claims

Real contradicted and unverifiable claims from the v1 run, not illustrative fabrications — each links to its full task detail.

contradictedA-004

Classic Fabry disease affects the neurological system.

pubmed:23931807pubmed:41354155
contradictedA-004

Classic Fabry disease affects the renal system.

pubmed:32183665pubmed:41354155
contradictedA-004

Classic Fabry disease affects the gastrointestinal system.

pubmed:41354155
contradictedA-004

Classic Fabry disease affects the cutaneous system.

pubmed:41354155pubmed:28104284
contradictedB-003

The enzyme homogentisate 1,2-dioxygenase is deficient in alkaptonuria.

pubmed:20694448pubmed:34344451pubmed:38453957pubmed:20229718
unverifiableA-008

Behavioral disorders such as hyperactivity, aggression, and self-injury are reported in Angelman syndrome.

pubmed:47599585
Citation support breakdown chart

Abstention & selective prediction

Abstention (“insufficient evidence”) is a first-class, gradeable answer in this benchmark, not a failure mode. RQ6 asks whether the model’s self-reported claim confidence is a usable signal for deciding when to abstain.

Overall abstention correctness
84.4%
n=45 tasks
Type A
100.0%
10 tasks
Type B
90.0%
10 tasks
Type C
100.0%
4 tasks
Type D
100.0%
10 tasks
Type E
0.0%
1 tasks
Type H
50.0%
10 tasks

Type H (should-abstain) correctness is the weak point at 5/10 (50%). The v1 task set sharpens why: the model distinguishes topic-level absence well (3/3 correct when a whole drug topic is absent from the corpus) but not product-level absence within a covered topic (0/2 on “this disease has some gene-therapy evidence, but not this specific named product”) — see the failure taxonomy for the concrete task IDs.

Confidence thresholdCoverageSelective accuracyn answered
0.0084.4%86.8%38/45
0.3084.4%86.8%38/45
0.5084.4%86.8%38/45
0.6084.4%86.8%38/45
0.7084.4%86.8%38/45
0.8084.4%86.8%38/45
0.9057.8%92.3%26/45
0.9546.7%95.2%21/45
1.0033.3%100.0%15/45
Risk-coverage curve: selective accuracy rises as the confidence threshold tightens

Selective accuracy rises monotonically as the threshold tightens — at threshold 1.0 (only the model’s maximum-confidence claims), accuracy reaches 100% at the cost of answering only 15/45 tasks. Replicated cleanly at 2x scale from the v0 run (claims_registry.md C-023).