Lint report · stored run
Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models
0errors
0warnings
0info
24claims read
192numbers extracted
8references
How well we read this paper
1 observation
These are notes about our reading of the paper, not about the paper. They affect how much weight the findings below can carry.
Note 1
- compile-warning semantic extraction: dropped 4 items whose quote was not found in the paper
Some checks could not run
- RL002 reported nothing, and it could not reach OpenAlex — so its silence here is not evidence that this paper is clean.
- RL003 reported nothing, and it could not reach OpenAlex — so its silence here is not evidence that this paper is clean.
Everything else on this page was computed from the paper itself and is unaffected. This is a limit of this run, not a finding about the paper.
Compiler extraction log (1)
semantic extraction: dropped 4 items whose quote was not found in the paper
No findings on this paper.
That is a result, not a failure. The compiler read the paper without errors, and no rule found something it could prove with evidence — this product would rather say nothing than say something vague.
Read the extraction notes above before taking this as a clean bill of health: they say which checks were working with incomplete information.
Rule notes (23)
RL001 funnel arithmetic: sentences_with_from=5 endpoint_pairs=1 claims_compared=0 emitted=0 [dropped: not-a-measurement=0]
RL001 funnel delta-column: structured_tables=2 with_exactly_one_delta_column=0 rows_checked=0 emitted=0
RL001 funnel cross-location: quant=192 prose=68 prose_with_metric=55 prose_with_dataset=0 prose_with_metric_and_dataset=0 distinct_buckets=0 emitted=0 [dropped: not-a-measurement=0 not-in-quote=41]
RL001 funnel identifier-drift: settings_checked=2 sections_stating_one_value=0 emitted=0
RL002 citation entailment: attempted 5 of 5 ranked cited claims (15 in-text markers from 8 bibliography entries); 3 cited works could not be identified, 2 had no retrievable text, 0 model quotes failed verbatim verification, 0 were topically unrelated to the retrieved text.
RL002 candidate ranking (why the top 5 were chosen): [8] [introduction, absolutist wording, title/sentence overlap near zero, no DOI/arXiv id]; [3] [introduction, absolutist wording, no DOI/arXiv id]; [2] [introduction, absolutist wording, no DOI/arXiv id]; [4] [introduction, no DOI/arXiv id]; [6] [experiment, names an artefact (Label Studio), no DOI/arXiv id]
RL002 attribution check (case B): 1 candidates name an artefact, 1 of them made the top-N and were checked against their cited source
RL002: 1 citations skipped because the sentence reports this paper's own results (the citation there is a comparison pointer, not evidence for the sentence)
RL002: 1 markers skipped because the claim is jointly attributed to several works
RL002: 3 cited works unresolvable (first 3: [{"key": "[8]", "title": "Causal parrots: Large language models may talk causality but are not causal", "why": "no work record matched the bibliography title"}, {"key": "[3]", "title": "Causal reasoning and large language models: Opening a new frontier for causality", "why": "no work record matched the bibliography title"}, {"key": "[6]", "title": "Label Studio: Data labeling software", "why": "no)
RL003: 2 queries -> 149 unique works (arXiv search 99, category listings 0, scholarly graph 50 [crossref 50], 0 graph works matched to an arXiv id); source errors during retrieval: arXiv 0, graph 0
RL003: parsed the reference list of 0/0 comparable papers (0 unreadable) — that is the PeerUsage denominator
RL003: could read the reference list of only 0 comparable papers (need 4) — peer usage unavailable, no findings
RL004 funnel: components=7 contribution_backed=2 candidates=0 ablations_found=0 matched_by_ablation=0 unmatched=0 experiments=6
RL004 component M1 'Evaluation framework for causal hypothesis verification': excluded:is-the-whole-method
RL004 component M2 'Standardized prompt template': excluded:evaluation-infrastructure-or-packaging
RL004 component M3 'Automated pipeline for collecting and parsing LLM responses': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M4 'Human annotation of hypothesis and supporting evidence': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M5 'Evaluation metrics for hypothesis classification and evidence grounding': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M6 'Label Studio': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 component M7 '17 causal hypotheses validated by four expert clinicians': excluded:not-a-claimed-contribution
RL004 funnel: ranked=0 emitted=0 suppressed_by_cap=0 dropped_unverified_quote=0
RL005: repo https://github.com/HumanSignal/label-studio unusable (stopped early after 400 files / 2071188 bytes)
Reading the report as data
This page is a rendering of the report the pipeline wrote. The JSON below
is the stored artefact, unedited — the same document
research-lint --format json produces.
loading…