To address these challenges, we propose a communication model that:
- clarifies intent through dialogue
- guides claims toward verifiable evidence
- explains diverse expert perspectives instead of forcing consensus
It reframes medical fact-checking as patient–expert dialogue
4/
- clarifies intent through dialogue
- guides claims toward verifiable evidence
- explains diverse expert perspectives instead of forcing consensus
It reframes medical fact-checking as patient–expert dialogue
4/
July 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
To address these challenges, we propose a communication model that:
- clarifies intent through dialogue
- guides claims toward verifiable evidence
- explains diverse expert perspectives instead of forcing consensus
It reframes medical fact-checking as patient–expert dialogue
4/
- clarifies intent through dialogue
- guides claims toward verifiable evidence
- explains diverse expert perspectives instead of forcing consensus
It reframes medical fact-checking as patient–expert dialogue
4/
Verifying medical claims wasn’t straightforward for experts. They struggled with:
1️⃣ linking claims to evidence
2️⃣ interpreting underspecified or misguided claims
3️⃣ labeling nuanced claims—often with disagreement
These challenges are inherent to end-to-end fact-checking 🚧
3/
1️⃣ linking claims to evidence
2️⃣ interpreting underspecified or misguided claims
3️⃣ labeling nuanced claims—often with disagreement
These challenges are inherent to end-to-end fact-checking 🚧
3/
July 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Verifying medical claims wasn’t straightforward for experts. They struggled with:
1️⃣ linking claims to evidence
2️⃣ interpreting underspecified or misguided claims
3️⃣ labeling nuanced claims—often with disagreement
These challenges are inherent to end-to-end fact-checking 🚧
3/
1️⃣ linking claims to evidence
2️⃣ interpreting underspecified or misguided claims
3️⃣ labeling nuanced claims—often with disagreement
These challenges are inherent to end-to-end fact-checking 🚧
3/
We study real-world medical claims from Reddit, preserving post context and verifying them with RCT abstracts. 📄
Six experts annotated 20 claims, each with 10 abstracts.
Annotations span:
1️⃣ abstract relevance
2️⃣ claim-level evidence quality
3️⃣ explanations citing abstracts
2/
Six experts annotated 20 claims, each with 10 abstracts.
Annotations span:
1️⃣ abstract relevance
2️⃣ claim-level evidence quality
3️⃣ explanations citing abstracts
2/
July 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
We study real-world medical claims from Reddit, preserving post context and verifying them with RCT abstracts. 📄
Six experts annotated 20 claims, each with 10 abstracts.
Annotations span:
1️⃣ abstract relevance
2️⃣ claim-level evidence quality
3️⃣ explanations citing abstracts
2/
Six experts annotated 20 claims, each with 10 abstracts.
Annotations span:
1️⃣ abstract relevance
2️⃣ claim-level evidence quality
3️⃣ explanations citing abstracts
2/
Are we fact-checking medical claims the right way? 🩺🤔
Probably not. In our study, even experts struggled to verify Reddit health claims using end-to-end systems.
We show why—and argue fact-checking should be a dialogue, with patients in the loop
arxiv.org/abs/2506.20876
🧵1/
Probably not. In our study, even experts struggled to verify Reddit health claims using end-to-end systems.
We show why—and argue fact-checking should be a dialogue, with patients in the loop
arxiv.org/abs/2506.20876
🧵1/
July 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Are we fact-checking medical claims the right way? 🩺🤔
Probably not. In our study, even experts struggled to verify Reddit health claims using end-to-end systems.
We show why—and argue fact-checking should be a dialogue, with patients in the loop
arxiv.org/abs/2506.20876
🧵1/
Probably not. In our study, even experts struggled to verify Reddit health claims using end-to-end systems.
We show why—and argue fact-checking should be a dialogue, with patients in the loop
arxiv.org/abs/2506.20876
🧵1/