Artificial Intelligence Can Match Domain Experts in Evidence Extraction and Critical Appraisal of Microbial Oncogenesis Research Publications

Confirmed oncogenic microbes contribute significantly to cancer burden. Identifying novel microbial oncogenicity could yield strategies that will reduce disease burdens. However, relevant evidence is dispersed and infeasible for humans to comprehensively synthesize. LLMs may enable scalable, expert-level systematic evidence synthesis to identify microbe-cancer pairs; however, such capabilities have not yet been demonstrated. Domain experts were recruited to create a dataset to benchmark LLM performance (Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-5, GPT-5 Nano) on 24 research papers using MMTV-LV and breast cancer as a case study. We devised a structured template for evidence extraction and appraisal, consisting of MCQ, Likert-scale, multi-select, and free-text question types (77 items across 24 papers). Agreement between (1) experts and (2) experts and each LLM was determined per question instance using novel metrics. LLMs were assessed by comparing inter-expert and expert-LLM agreement distributions to determine whether LLMs behaved as additional experts by increasing or maintaining inter-expert agreement. Free-text responses were further evaluated qualitatively. Across all question types, LLM responses aligned closely with experts, with GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano achieving score distributions indistinguishable from experts. Gemini models behaved similarly but were significantly more lenient in applying microbial oncogenesis criteria. Hallucinations were rare. Methodological appraisal and identification of contradictions within full-texts were the most persistent LLM vulnerabilities. GPT-5 and GPT-5 Nano were indistinguishable from experts on structured domain research paper evaluation tasks. This supports use of LLMs for automated systematic evidence synthesis. However, methodological appraisal tasks and contradiction identification in full-texts remain weaknesses requiring strengthening.

AnchorSIPS: A Synthetic Dataset and Evaluation Resource for Evidence-Supported Psychosis-Risk Symptom Measurement

Progress on AI for psychosis-risk assessment is limited by a data-access bottleneck. Real clinical interviews are difficult to share because of privacy, governance, and consent constraints. We present AnchorSIPS, a synthetic dataset of 10K structured psychosis-risk interviews with transcript-grounded measurement targets. Each interview is modeled on Mini-SIPS, a clinician-administered psychosis-risk interview. It captures history, 24 symptom questions, follow-up evidence for items the patient affirms, decisions about delusion-like symptoms (unusual beliefs), hallucination-like symptoms (unusual perceptions), and disorganized communication, exclusion of clear psychotic-level symptoms ("frank psychosis"), and a final attenuated psychosis syndrome (APS) diagnosis, a high-risk state of milder or early psychotic symptoms. The APS diagnosis is not a standalone label. It depends on earlier endorsements, supporting follow-up details, symptom-class decisions, and the frank-psychosis check. Every intermediate decision is anchored to its supporting transcript turns. AnchorSIPS is generated by a plan-then-realize pipeline. A hidden case sheet specifies the patient's clinical state, a deterministic planner fixes the interview structure, and an LLM realizes only the patient utterances under validation and bounded repair. Fixing labels and structure before generation avoids the inter-turn inconsistencies typical of multi-turn LLM dialogue. Across seven LLM baselines, models recover coarse decisions but fail to extract follow-up details or cite supporting transcript turns, so final-label performance overstates interview competence. AnchorSIPS is intended for research on evidence extraction, transcript-grounded measurement, and uncertainty under partial disclosure.