ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Evaluating Language Models for Biomedical Fact-Checking: A Benchmark Dataset for Cancer Variant Interpretation Verification.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate interpretation of genomic variants is critical for precision oncology but remains slow and dependent on specialized expertise. Public knowledgebases such as the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) help by curating literature-backed variant interpretations in a structured form, yet verification and review have become major bottlenecks. To address this, we developed CIViC-Fact, a benchmark dataset and pipeline for testing automated systems that verify the accuracy of cancer variant claims. CIViC-Fact links structured claims to sentence-level supporting or refuting evidence from full-text articles, and includes expert annotations and explanations. We evaluated multiple language models. Proprietary models performed well without training, but a smaller open-source model, fine-tuned on CIViC-Fact, achieved the highest accuracy (89%). Applying our fact-checking pipeline to real CIViC entries showed that reviewing less than 20% of content, focusing on flagged entries, would be sufficient to catch over half of all errors. This AI-assisted triage greatly accelerates the review process without replacing or reducing expert insight, ensuring that existing careful oversight remains in place while curators can work more efficiently. CIViC-Fact provides a realistic, high-consequence framework for biomedical fact-checking and a path toward more rigorous and efficient knowledgebase curation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.