Authoring and Management of Transparent Research Integrity Assessments of Randomised Clinical Trial Publications Using LLM-assisted Tools and Provenance Knowledge Graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07202v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 13:17:56 GMT
• Title: Authoring and Management of Transparent Research Integrity Assessments of Randomised Clinical Trial Publications Using LLM-assisted Tools and Provenance Knowledge Graphs
• Abstract summary: This paper describes INSPECT-AI, an interactive tool that assists human reviewers with research integrity assessments of published RCTs.<n>In addition, we present the Research Integrity Provenance and Evidence knowledge graph (RIPE-KG), an initial set of 140 expert research integrity assessments of 95 RCTs.
• Score: 1.278416597547996
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Systematic reviews of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are routinely used as evidence for clinical care guidelines. Such evidence has to meet high research integrity standards to prevent low quality or false research outputs influencing the clinical care. However, assessing research integrity of published RCTs is a complex process requiring manual effort, and potentially resulting in diverse opinions of the human assessors. This paper describes INSPECT-AI, an LLM-based interactive tool that assists human reviewers with research integrity assessments of published RCTs based on the community approved INSPECT-SR framework, and the Research Integrity Provenance and Evidence ontology (RIPE-O) for documenting the provenance of the assessment process. In addition, we present the Research Integrity Provenance and Evidence knowledge graph (RIPE-KG), an initial set of 140 expert research integrity assessments of 95 RCT publications generated by INSPECT-AI and described using RIPE-O.

Related papers

• DeepER-Med: Advancing Deep Evidence-Based Research in Medicine Through Agentic AI [10.310030966524161]
  We introduce DeepER-Med, a framework for deep medical research with an agentic AI system.<n>DeepER-Med frames deep medical research as an explicit and inspectable workflow of evidence-based generation.<n>It consistently outperforms widely used production-grade platforms across multiple criteria.<n>Human clinician assessment indicates that DeepER-Med's conclusions align with clinical recommendations in seven cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T18:17:24Z)
• Eligibility-Aware Evidence Synthesis: An Agentic Framework for Clinical Trial Meta-Analysis [49.83108591873481]
  EligMeta is an agentic framework that integrates automated trial discovery with eligibility-aware meta-analysis.<n>The framework structures eligibility criteria and computes similarity-based study weights reflecting population alignment between target trials.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T03:18:50Z)
• Towards a Medical AI Scientist [73.6056699962416]
  We introduce Medical AI Scientist, the first autonomous research framework tailored to clinical autonomous research.<n>The framework operates under 3 research modes, namely paper-based reproduction, literature-inspired innovation, and task-driven exploration.<n>Our system achieves strong alignment between the proposed method and its implementation, while also demonstrating significantly higher success rates in executable experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T15:37:25Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• Responsible Evaluation of AI for Mental Health [72.85175110624736]
  Current approaches to evaluating AI tools in mental health care are fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience.<n>This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T12:55:10Z)
• An Investigation on How AI-Generated Responses Affect SoftwareEngineering Surveys [3.183470571353323]
  This study explores how large language models (LLMs) are being misused in software engineering surveys.<n>We analyzed data from two survey deployments conducted in 2025 through the Prolific platform.<n>We identify data authenticity as an emerging dimension of validity in software engineering surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T11:17:05Z)
• End-to-End Agentic RAG System Training for Traceable Diagnostic Reasoning [52.12425911708585]
  Deep-DxSearch is an agentic RAG system trained end-to-end with reinforcement learning (RL)<n>In Deep-DxSearch, we first construct a large-scale medical retrieval corpus comprising patient records and reliable medical knowledge sources.<n> Experiments demonstrate that our end-to-end RL training framework consistently outperforms prompt-engineering and training-free RAG approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T17:42:47Z)
• Natural Language Processing in Support of Evidence-based Medicine: A Scoping Review [20.806546651936408]
  Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is at the forefront of modern healthcare, emphasizing the use of the best available scientific evidence to guide clinical decisions.<n>There is a critical need to investigate Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to identify, appraise, synthesize, summarize, and disseminate evidence in EBM.<n>This survey presents an in-depth review of 129 research studies on leveraging NLP for EBM, illustrating its pivotal role in enhancing clinical decision-making processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T12:17:01Z)
• Systematic Literature Review on Clinical Trial Eligibility Matching [0.24554686192257422]
  Review highlights how explainable AI and standardized ontology can bolster clinician trust and broaden adoption.<n>Further research into advanced semantic and temporal representations, expanded data integration, and rigorous prospective evaluations is necessary to fully realize the transformative potential of NLP in clinical trial recruitment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T11:45:50Z)
• Clinical Evaluation of Medical Image Synthesis: A Case Study in Wireless Capsule Endoscopy [63.39037092484374]
  Synthetic Data Generation based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) can transform the way clinical medicine is delivered.<n>This study focuses on the clinical evaluation of medical SDG, with a proof-of-concept investigation on diagnosing Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) using Wireless Capsule Endoscopy (WCE) images.<n>The results show that TIDE-II generates clinically plausible, very realistic WCE images, of improved quality compared to relevant state-of-the-art generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T19:48:50Z)
• Accelerating Clinical Evidence Synthesis with Large Language Models [28.002870749019035]
  We introduce TrialMind, a generative artificial intelligence pipeline for facilitating human-AI collaboration. TrialMind excels across study search, screening, and data extraction tasks. Human experts favored TrialMind's outputs over GPT-4's in 62.5% to 100% of cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T17:41:52Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Privacy Impact Assessments in the Wild: A Scoping Review [1.7677916783208343]
  Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) offer a systematic process for assessing the privacy impacts of a project or system. PIAs are heralded as one of the main approaches to privacy by design, supporting the early identification of threats and controls. There is still a significant need for more primary research on the topic, both qualitative and quantitative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:07:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.