{
 "ledger": {
  "title": "Claim Ledger: The Average Is Nobody's Result",
  "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/",
  "essay": {
   "title": "The Average Is Nobody's Result",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/blog/the-average-is-nobodys-result/",
   "published": "2026-08-04"
  },
  "last_checked": "2026-09-27",
  "format": "current",
  "counts": {
   "claims": 35,
   "by_status": {
    "EXECUTED": 11,
    "VERIFIED": 23,
    "REPORTED": 1
   },
   "verified_at_primary": 23,
   "removed": 0
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "attribution": "The Durability Curve (Harry Floyd), https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/"
 },
 "rows": [
  {
   "id": "1",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-1",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Of 255 abstracts with text in the corpus, 21 report the assistant's effect split by a property of the operator and 234 report an average and nothing else",
   "quote": "\"HEADLINE: 21/255 studies report the assistant's effect split by a property of the OPERATOR. = 8.2% 234 report an average over operators and nothing else.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "2",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-2",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Among primary records by PubMed's own publication type the figure is 21 of 157",
   "quote": "\"Among primary records only: 21/157 = 13.4%\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "3",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-3",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Of the 21, only 8 print per-stratum effect estimates for every stratum; 3 print one stratum and a bare null; 10 report only a direction or a significance verdict",
   "quote": "\"SPLIT_FULL 8 per-stratum estimates for every stratum · SPLIT_PARTIAL 3 one stratum estimated, the other a bare null · SPLIT_DIRECTION 10 a direction or a p-verdict, nothing poolable\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "4",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-4",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The splits disagree: 7 find the larger effect in weaker operators, 4 in stronger, 3 no interaction, 3 nothing significant after stratifying, 1 divergence",
   "quote": "\"LOWER 7 ... HIGHER 4 ... UNIFORM 3 ... NONE 3 ... DIVERGES 1\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "5",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-5",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Three deliberately dissimilar detectors were run; the obvious one reached 15 records of which 7 are real splits, missing 14",
   "quote": "\"pattern A: reached 15 of which real splits 7 precision 0.47 coverage 0.33 of the 21 found\" · \"Pattern A alone, unread, would have reported 15 records of which 7 are real, missing 14.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "6",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-6",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Pattern B reached 39 records at precision 0.36 and coverage 0.67 of the found set; pattern C reached 13 at precision 0.69 and coverage 0.43",
   "quote": "\"pattern B: reached 39 of which real splits 14 precision 0.36 coverage 0.67 of the 21 found\" · \"pattern C: reached 13 of which real splits 9 precision 0.69 coverage 0.43 of the 21 found\" · \"'coverage' is the share of the found positives a pattern reached, NOT recall\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "7",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-7",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Every record any pattern reached was hand-read, and the script refuses to print the headline while one is unread",
   "quote": "\"HEADLINE: UNAVAILABLE — 20 record(s) reached by a pattern are unread.\" (the refusal branch, observed firing before adjudication was complete)",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "8",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-8",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The PubMed query returns 259 records, 255 with abstracts",
   "quote": "\"PubMed hits: 259 (retmax 400, fetched 259)\" · \"classified : 255 (no abstract: 4)\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party run by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "9",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-9",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "In a seeded 20-record sample of the primary average-only class, 9 had open full text and none reported an operator split in its results",
   "quote": "Sample drawn with random.Random(20260802) from 136 eligible records; PMC full text retrieved for 9; operator-split patterns returned 0 result-section hits in 8, and in the ninth the only hit was future-tense text in a trial protocol",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party full-text check by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "10",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-10",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Eleven of the twenty sampled records are not in PMC and their full texts were not read",
   "quote": "NCBI ID converter returned \"Identifier not found in PMC\" for 11 of the 20 sampled PMIDs",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party full-text check by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "11",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-11",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Reanalysing a CAD mammography study, use of CAD was associated with a 0.016 increase in sensitivity (95% CI 0.003-0.028) for the 44 least discriminating radiologists on 45 relatively easy cancers",
   "quote": "\"Use of CAD was associated with a 0.016 increase in sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003-0.028) for the 44 least discriminating radiologists for 45 relatively easy, mostly CAD-detected cancers.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo, Alberdi, Strigini & Ayton, Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "12",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-12",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "For the 6 most discriminating radiologists, sensitivity decreased by 0.145 (95% CI 0.034-0.257) on the 15 relatively difficult cancers",
   "quote": "\"However, for the 6 most discriminating radiologists, with CAD, sensitivity decreased by 0.145 (95% CI, 0.034-0.257) for the 15 relatively difficult cancers.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo et al., Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "13",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-13",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The original study detected no significant average effect, and the reanalysis found CAD helped the less discriminating readers and hindered the more discriminating ones",
   "quote": "\"It indicates that, despite the original study detecting no significant average effect, CAD helped the less discriminating readers but hindered the more discriminating readers.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo et al., Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "14",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-14",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "That reanalysis covered 50 readers interpreting 180 mammograms both with and without computer support",
   "quote": "\"reanalyzing data from a published study where 50 professionals (\\\"readers\\\") interpreted 180 mammograms, both with and without computer support\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo et al., Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Background",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "15",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-15",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The reader and case strata were derived after the fact from the same regression, and the authors call the method exploratory",
   "quote": "\"Using regression estimates, we obtained thresholds for classifying a posteriori the cases (by difficulty) and the readers (by discriminating ability).\" · \"Our exploratory analysis method reveals unexpected effects.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo et al., Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Method and Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "16",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-16",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The authors said such differential effects should be assessed when evaluating CAD and similar warning systems",
   "quote": "\"Such differential effects, although subtle, may be clinically significant and important for improving both computer algorithms and protocols for their use. They should be assessed when evaluating CAD and similar warning systems.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Povyakalo et al., Med Decis Making 2013",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23300205/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "17",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-17",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "In a population-based randomised trial of 4,824 surveillance colonoscopies, CADe increased ADR among low-performing endoscopists (45.5% vs 52.1%; aRR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.30) but not among high-performing ones (65.9% vs 63.5%; aRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.05)",
   "quote": "\"Of 5,309 randomized surveillance colonoscopies, 4,824 surveillance colonoscopies were included in the final analysis\" · \"CADe increased ADR among low-performing (ADR<54.5%) endoscopists (45.5% vs 52.1%; aRR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]), but not among high-performing endoscopists (65.9% vs 63.5%; aRR 0.96 [95% CI 0.88-1.05]).\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Endoscopy 2026, Galician screening programme, PMID 42365851",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42365851/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "18",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-18",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "That subgroup analysis was prespecified",
   "quote": "\"Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated endoscopist baseline performance (median ADR in the standard arm).\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Endoscopy 2026, PMID 42365851",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42365851/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Methods",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "19",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-19",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "In a 3,059-patient multicentre randomised trial the gain was larger in experts: ADR of experts 42.3% vs 32.8% (P < .001) and of nonexperts 37.5% vs 32.1% (P = .023)",
   "quote": "\"From November 2019 to August 2021, 3059 subjects were randomized to AI-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1519) and conventional colonoscopy (n = 1540).\" · \"ADR of expert (42.3% vs 32.8%; P < .001) and nonexpert endoscopists (37.5% vs 32.1%; P = .023)... were all significantly higher in the AI-assisted colonoscopy.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023, PMID 35863686",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35863686/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "20",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-20",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "A 2026 study expected the greatest increase among low-volume and junior endoscopists",
   "quote": "\"The greatest increase was expected among low-volume and junior endoscopists.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Dis Colon Rectum 2026, PMID 41919624",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41919624/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Objective",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "21",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-21",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "It reported that seniors rose from 51.7% to 59.6% (p = 0.02) and juniors from 56.2% to 62.9% (p = 0.12), and concluded the tool correlated with increased detection for experienced endoscopists",
   "quote": "\"Of 12 senior and 12 junior endoscopists, the seniors had a statistically significant increase ( p = 0.02) from 51.7% to 59.6%, whereas juniors did not (56.2% to 62.9%, p = 0.12).\" · \"Computer-aided detection in colonoscopy correlated with an increased adenoma detection rate for experienced endoscopists.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Dis Colon Rectum 2026, PMID 41919624",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41919624/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results and Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "22",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-22",
   "status": "EXECUTED",
   "status_label": "Executed",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Those two reported increases are 7.9 points and 6.7 points, a gap of 1.2 points, and only the larger crossed p<0.05",
   "quote": "59.6 − 51.7 = 7.9 · 62.9 − 56.2 = 6.7 · 7.9 − 6.7 = 1.2. Subtraction only; no model, no reanalysis, and no claim that either estimate is wrong",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "first-party arithmetic on row 21's quoted rates by The Durability Curve",
   "source_url": "",
   "locator": "",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "23",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-23",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The same study reported the same pattern on two further operator axes: high-volume 51.3% to 59.4% (p = 0.01) against low-volume 56.5% to 63.1% (p = 0.13), and surgeons 49% to 62% (p = 0.02) against gastroenterologists 56.9% to 60.8% (p = 0.15)",
   "quote": "\"Colorectal surgeons had a statistically significant increase in adenoma detection rate from 49% to 62% ( p = 0.02), but gastroenterologists did not (56.9% to 60.8%, p = 0.15).\" · \"When comparing 12 high-volume and 12 low-volume endoscopists, the high-volume group had a statistically significant increase (51.3% to 59.4%, p = 0.01), whereas the low-volume group did not (56.5% to 63.1%, p = 0.13).\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Dis Colon Rectum 2026, PMID 41919624",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41919624/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "24",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-24",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Pooling two randomised trials, CADe raised ADR (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.42) while examiner experience did not (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16), and the authors concluded experience plays a minor role",
   "quote": "\"use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis.\" · \"Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Gut 2022, AID-1 + AID-2, PMID 34187845",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34187845/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results and Conclusion",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "25",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-25",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The title of the paper naming the inference error is \"The Difference Between 'Significant' and 'Not Significant' is not Itself Statistically Significant\"",
   "quote": "\"The Difference Between \\\"Significant\\\" and \\\"Not Significant\\\" is not Itself Statistically Significant\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Gelman & Stern, The American Statistician 60(4):328-331, 2006",
   "source_url": "http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf",
   "locator": "author's deposited PDF, title, page 1",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "26",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-26",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Their point is not that thresholds are arbitrary but that large changes in significance can correspond to small, non-significant changes in the underlying quantities",
   "quote": "\"Rather, we are pointing out that even large changes in significance levels can correspond to small, nonsignificant changes in the underlying quantities.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Gelman & Stern, 2006",
   "source_url": "http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/signif4.pdf",
   "locator": "deposited PDF, abstract, page 1",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "27",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-27",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The reporting standard for AI trials asks investigators to state what level of expertise was required of users",
   "quote": "\"CONSORT-AI 5 (iv) Extension Specify whether there was human–AI interaction in the handling of the input data, and what level of expertise was required of users.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "CONSORT-AI extension, Nat Med 26:1364-1374, 2020",
   "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7598943/",
   "locator": "checklist table, item 5 (iv), PMC full text",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "28",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-28",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Its guidance encourages exploring differences in performance across population subgroups, and no item asks for the result across operator subgroups",
   "quote": "\"Beyond this, investigators should also be encouraged to explore differences in performance and error rates across population subgroups.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "CONSORT-AI extension, 2020",
   "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7598943/",
   "locator": "discussion of item 19 extension, PMC full text; the full 14-item extension list was read and contains no operator-stratified reporting item",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "29",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-29",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The COLO-DETECT protocol pre-registered a subgroup analysis by colonoscopist type",
   "quote": "\"Subgroup analyses will be conducted on colonoscopist type (i.e., non-BCSP accredited vs. BCSP accredited) and indication for colonoscopy (screening vs. symptomatic).\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "COLO-DETECT trial protocol, Colorectal Dis 2022, PMID 35680613",
   "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9796278/",
   "locator": "protocol full text, statistical analysis section, PMC9796278",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "30",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-30",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The same protocol said a range of colonoscopist experience was anticipated and desirable, and specified how it would be measured",
   "quote": "\"A range of experience amongst participating colonoscopists is anticipated and desirable; to facilitate subgroup analysis by colonoscopist experience, it will be assessed by BCSP accreditation status, lifetime procedure numbers and yearly procedure numbers for the last 3 years\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "COLO-DETECT protocol, 2022",
   "source_url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9796278/",
   "locator": "protocol full text, PMC9796278",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "31",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-31",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The COLO-DETECT results reported one average across 2032 participants at 12 NHS hospitals: adenomas detected in 56·6% versus 48·4%, adjusted odds ratio 1·47 (95% CI 1·21-1·78)",
   "quote": "\"We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in 12 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (ten NHS Trusts) in England\" · \"Between March 29, 2021, and April 6, 2023, 2032 participants (1132 [55·7%] male, 900 [44·3%] female; mean age 62·4 years [SD 10·8]) were recruited and randomly assigned\" · \"Adenomas were detected in 555 (56·6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group versus 477 (48·4%) of 986 in the standard colonoscopy group, representing a proportion difference of 8·3% (95% CI 3·9-12·7; adjusted odds ratio 1·47 [95% CI 1·21-1·78], p<0·0001).\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "COLO-DETECT, Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024, PMID 39153491",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39153491/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Methods and Findings",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "32",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-32",
   "status": "REPORTED",
   "status_label": "Reported",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Its randomisation was stratified by age group, sex, indication and NHS Trust, and its abstract names no colonoscopist subgroup",
   "quote": "Stratification verbatim: \"with stratification by age group, sex, colonoscopy indication (screening or symptomatic), and NHS Trust\". The absence of a colonoscopist subgroup is an absence in the deposited abstract only — the paper is not in PMC and the full text was not read.",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "COLO-DETECT, Lancet Gastro Hep 2024, PMID 39153491",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39153491/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Methods",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "33",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-33",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "The field's current answer is a study-level one: pooling twenty-eight randomised trials and 23,861 participants, an expert-only subgroup showed a similar effect size (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.27) and the review concluded the benefit holds irrespective of endoscopist experience",
   "quote": "\"Twenty-eight RCTs were selected for inclusion involving 23,861 participants.\" · \"Subgroup analyses involving only expert endoscopists demonstrated a similar effect size (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.27; P < .001)\" · \"AI-assisted colonoscopy significantly improved adenoma detection but not sessile serrated lesion detection irrespective of endoscopist experience, system type, or healthcare setting.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Gastrointest Endosc 2025 systematic review, PMID 39216648",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39216648/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results and Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-09-27"
  },
  {
   "id": "34",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-34",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "A second meta-analysis reached the same study-level conclusion across twenty-four randomised trials and 17,413 colonoscopies",
   "quote": "\"Twenty-four RCTs involving 17,413 colonoscopies (AI assisted: 8680; non-AI assisted: 8733) were included.\" · \"Type of AI system used or endoscopist experience did not affect overall improvement in ADR.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Gastrointest Endosc 2024, PMID 38272274",
   "source_url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38272274/",
   "locator": "deposited abstract, Results and Conclusions",
   "date_read": "2026-08-02"
  },
  {
   "id": "35",
   "url": "https://durabilitycurve.com/claims/the-average-is-nobodys-result/#c-35",
   "status": "VERIFIED",
   "status_label": "Verified",
   "removed": false,
   "claim": "Bainbridge stated in 1983 that unused physical skills decay and a monitoring operator becomes an inexperienced one",
   "quote": "\"Unfortunately, physical skills deteriorate when they are not used, particularly the refinements of gain and timing. This means that a formerly experienced operator who has been monitoring an automated process may now be an inexperienced one.\"",
   "removal_reason": "",
   "source": "Bainbridge, Automatica 19(6):775-779, 1983",
   "source_url": "https://ckrybus.com/static/papers/Bainbridge_1983_Automatica.pdf",
   "locator": "§1.1.1 Manual control skills",
   "date_read": "2026-08-01"
  }
 ]
}