arXiv:2511. 19735v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)have been the cornerstone of clinical evidence; however, their cost, duration, and restrictive eligibility criteria limit power and external validity.
arXiv:2606. 28692v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Treatment reasoning underpins every therapeutic decision, integrating disease context, comorbidities, medications, contraindications, and evolving biomedical knowledge to select an appropriate therapy.
arXiv:2608.30393v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biomedical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly extract, organize, and reuse scientific claims from literature, clinical trials, and regul...
While automated research systems promise to accelerate empirical analysis, they are prone to silent failures: instances in which analysis code executes successfully yet relies on invalid causal assumptions. We present the Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Epidemiology Research Assistant (ARA), a framework that makes these failures visible by explicitly encoding causal design principles, study-specific assumptions, and methodological constraints.
arXiv:2607. 21173v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While automated research systems promise to accelerate empirical analysis, they are prone to silent failures: instances in which analysis code executes successfully yet relies on invalid causal assumptions.
The article proposes a framework called quantitative evidence mining to transform biomedical findings into structured, context-rich evidence units. It outlines core elements such as claim, measured entity, value, comparator, population, conditions, temporal context, uncertainty, provenance, validation, and expert review. The authors present an eight-stage reference architecture and emphasize that plausibility should remain multidimensional rather than collapsed into a single truth label, linking extraction to evidence synthesis for applications like clinical trials, biomarker research, and knowledge-graph construction.
arXiv:2607. 27224v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: External and synthetic control arms (ECAs) are entering psychiatric drug development, but the field lacks a benchmark that evaluates the properties regulators care about: not only how accurately a method reconstructs untreated trajectories, but whether its uncertainty is calibrated, whether it is robust to the informative observation times common in mental-health records (sicker patients are seen more often), and what false-positive rate it induces in go/no-go trial decisions.
arXiv:2607. 21806v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Predictive machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used to aid human decision-makers across various high-risk domains such as healthcare and criminal justice.
arXiv:2609.21859v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Nearly 90% of drugs entering clinical development ultimately fail, despite billions of dollars in investment. Pharmaceutical companies therefore rely o...
CausalProfiler is a synthetic benchmark generator designed to evaluate causal machine learning (Causal ML) methods more rigorously and transparently. It randomly samples causal models, data, queries, and ground truths based on explicit design choices across observation, intervention, and counterfactual reasoning levels, providing coverage guarantees and transparent assumptions. The authors demonstrate its utility by testing several state‑of‑the‑art methods under diverse conditions, both within and outside the identification regime, highlighting the insights CausalProfiler can reveal.
arXiv:2606. 19245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) agents promise to accelerate drug discovery by compressing interpretation and decision-making loops, but practical deployment requires trusted evaluation on realistic program decisions.
arXiv:2605. 02050v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This work establishes a framework for standardizing AI evaluation RCTs (sometimes called human uplift studies).
arXiv:2606. 31273v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI-assisted research has entered a stage in which the central question is not only whether systems can generate hypotheses, run experiments, or produce manuscripts, but whether their scientific claims are calibrated to the evidence that supports them.