medical-fact-check

name

medical-fact-check

description

Pre-publish QA for medical writing (AMPL company gate, open protocol). Deterministic citation engine plus CITADEL-style claimed-title confirmation, 15-criteria appraisal, adversarial KILL, and a ship gate. Evaluates papers, posts, slides, guidelines, marketing, patient materials, AI-generated copy. Report with A-F, integrity stamp, ship: no/caveats/human-ack. Triggers: fact-check, evidence check, evaluate this article, check this post, ship gate, QA, ファクトチェック, エビデンスチェック, この記事を評価して, この投稿の問題点.

Medical Fact-Check Skill

AMPL's quality assurance for medical writing, published as an open protocol. Critical appraisal plus a ship gate: the piece does not go out with a fabricated identifier presented as real.

Scope. This is a pre-publication aid for writers, editors, and researchers — not clinical decision support. It evaluates how medical content is written and sourced; it does not diagnose, treat, or replace professional medical judgment. Do not recommend treatments.

Must-read before scoring. Use the Read tool on references/verification-workflow.md (operating model, loops, hard rules), references/adversarial-review.md (red-team, KILL/MAJOR/MINOR/PASS), references/citadel-confirmation.md (claimed-title confirmation after T4), and references/ship-gate.md (company / publisher QA) before you emit a letter grade or a ship stamp. Also load references/checklist.md, references/evidence-levels.md, templates/claim-ledger.md, and templates/report-template.md. Depending on install, the skill directory is ~/.claude/skills/medical-fact-check/ (manual copy) or ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/medical-fact-check/ (Evidentia plugin).

Deterministic citation engine. When checking citations (Step 4), prefer the local evidentia engine over verifying each identifier by hand. Use the evidentia binary first; fall back to npx -y evidentia only if a local install is unavailable. Evidentia resolves DOI/PMID/arXiv/NCT identifiers against CrossRef, PubMed, OpenAlex, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and emits the 4-tier classification plus lookupVerified and resolverOutcomes lookup traces. Use a cache path when possible so repeat checks are stable and fast. See Step 4 for how to call it.

Overview

This skill is a pre-publish QA gate. It evaluates medical information across 15 criteria, confirms fabrications the CITADEL way (claimed title absent from independent databases), then generates a structured Markdown report with an overall A–F score, an integrity stamp, and a ship decision (no / caveats / human-ack).

Supported Media Types

The skill auto-detects the content type and adjusts its evaluation accordingly:

Category	Examples	Key Focus
Research papers	Journal articles, preprints, systematic reviews	Evidence level, methodology, statistical rigor
News & articles	Health news, medical blogs, magazine articles	Accuracy of claims, source attribution, exaggeration
Social media	X (Twitter), Instagram, TikTok captions, Reddit, note	Brevity-induced omissions, clickbait, misinformation risk
Newsletters	Email newsletters, Substack, medical columns	Citation completeness, audience calibration
Patient materials	Leaflets, brochures, hospital handouts	Readability, completeness, fear-mongering
Video/audio transcripts	YouTube, podcasts, webinar transcripts	Verbal exaggeration, missing nuance, source attribution
Presentations	Conference slides, lecture materials, grand rounds	Slide oversimplification, citation on slides
Clinical guidelines	Practice guidelines, protocols, algorithms	AGREE II compliance, evidence grading, conflicts of interest
Marketing materials	Pharma ads, medical device brochures, supplement claims	Regulatory compliance, selective data presentation, COI
Health apps & digital	App descriptions, chatbot outputs, AI-generated content	Hallucination detection, accuracy of automated advice
Textbooks & education	Textbook chapters, CME/CPD materials, study guides	Currency, completeness, pedagogical accuracy
Infographics	Visual summaries, data visualizations, social cards	Data integrity, oversimplification, source attribution

The 15 Evaluation Criteria

1. Evidence level & study design
2. Citation & source accuracy (incl. AI hallucination detection)
3. Statistical interpretation
4. Causation vs. correlation
5. Bias & conflicts of interest
6. Exaggeration & overclaiming
7. Target population fit
8. Temporal validity
9. Jargon–readability balance
10. Ethical considerations
11. Logical consistency
12. Images & figures
13. Alternative explanations
14. Clinical relevance
15. Information completeness

Scoring

Each item is rated Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor. The overall score:

Score	Criteria
A	12+ Excellent, 0 Poor
B	12+ Excellent or Good, ≤1 Poor
C	12+ Fair or better, ≤2 Poor
D	3+ Poor
F	5+ Poor, or critical ethical issues

Adversarial gates (mandatory). A KILL forces overall score ≤ D (use F if ethics, harm, or fabrication). A MAJOR cannot be an A. Do not emit a clean A as if the piece is publishable when the verdict is KILL or MAJOR.

Two layers

• Engine (deterministic): DOI/PMID/arXiv/NCT vs CrossRef/PubMed/OpenAlex/arXiv/ClinicalTrials.gov. Tiers 1/3/4 with certainty. ISBN/guideline/title-only → Tier 2 (Content review needed), never Hallucination. Never invent a tier if the engine was not run. Never override Tier 4 to "probably real."
• Skill (judgment): claim ledger, semantic honesty, 15-criteria appraisal, adversarial red-team. The engine cannot tell you whether a real paper is used honestly.

Named loops (detail in references/verification-workflow.md): engine (retry once → unresolved, not Hallucination), semantic (one extra abstract lookup per T1 cite), adversarial (max 3; KILL/MAJOR → content must change; re-enter from the engine), correction (cap 3; then stop and report remaining issues).

flowchart TD
  A[Acquire content] --> B[Extract claim ledger]
  B --> C[Run evidentia engine]
  C --> D[Semantic honesty check]
  D --> E[15-criteria appraisal]
  E --> F[Adversarial red-team]
  F --> G[Score plus report]
  G --> H{User revises?}
  H -->|yes: max 3| C
  H -->|no or cap| I[Stop]

Worked example: examples/case-studies/vitamin-d-adversarial.md.

Workflow

Stage-gated. Do not skip the ledger, the engine, or adversarial review.

Step 1: Acquire & Analyze

Receive the target medical content from the user. Depending on the input format:

• URL — use WebFetch to retrieve the content
• File path — use Read to load the file
• Pasted text — analyze directly
• Video/audio — if a transcript is provided, analyze it; if a URL is given, attempt to retrieve transcript via WebFetch

Identify the following:

• Content type: research paper, blog post, social media, patient leaflet, video transcript, etc.
• Target audience: general public, healthcare professionals, patients, researchers, etc.
• Main claims: what the content is asserting
• Citations present: whether evidence is referenced
• Language: the language of the content (evaluate in the original language)
• Public health risk level: LOW (educational, niche), MEDIUM (widely shared, actionable claims), HIGH (viral content, safety-critical claims, vulnerable populations)

Media-Specific Pre-Analysis

Adjust the evaluation lens based on detected media type:

Social media posts:

• Character/space constraints may justify brevity, but core accuracy must be maintained
• Check for misleading compression of complex findings
• Evaluate whether the post drives readers to reliable sources

Video/podcast transcripts:

• Verbal hedging may be lost in transcription — look for spoken qualifiers
• Hosts may editorialize beyond guest experts' actual statements
• Check if timestamps or show notes reference sources

Marketing materials:

• Apply heightened scrutiny for selective data presentation
• Check regulatory compliance (FDA, PMDA, EMA guidelines for claims)
• Identify undisclosed conflicts of interest

Clinical guidelines:

• Apply AGREE II framework for guideline quality assessment
• Check for systematic evidence review methodology
• Verify COI disclosures of guideline panel members

AI-generated content:

• Apply maximum citation verification rigor (hallucination detection)
• Check for "confident but wrong" patterns typical of LLM output
• Verify all specific numbers, dates, and named entities

Step 1.5: Claim ledger (mandatory)

Read templates/claim-ledger.md and extract every testable claim plus its attached citation (or none) into the table: #, claim (verbatim), citation/id, engine tier, semantic (supports / cherry-pick / mismatch / n/a), adversarial note.

Do not skip this even for short social posts (1–3 claims). Headlines count. Leave engine tier / semantic blank until Steps 4 and 4b fill them. Do not score from vibes.

Step 2: Load Evaluation Checklist

Read references/checklist.md (in this skill's directory — see the note at the top) with the Read tool to load the detailed 15-item evaluation checklist.

Step 3: Assess Evidence Levels

If the content references research studies, read references/evidence-levels.md with the Read tool and evaluate:

• Study design type (RCT, cohort, case report, etc.)
• Study quality (bias risk, sample size, etc.)
• GRADE assessment for overall quality
• Domain-specific considerations (pediatrics, oncology, etc.)

Step 4: Verify Citations (engine loop)

If the content cites papers or sources, verify them. Prefer the deterministic engine for existence and bibliographic checks, then use WebSearch for the semantic context check that the engine cannot do.

Engine output is ground truth for existence. The LLM must not override Tier 4 to "probably real." Never invent a tier if the engine was not run.

4a. Run the deterministic engine (existence + bibliographic accuracy)

If evidentia (or the verify_citations MCP tool) is available, run it on the content first. It resolves DOI/PMID/arXiv/NCT identifiers against CrossRef, PubMed, OpenAlex, arXiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov and returns Tiers 1, 3, and 4 with certainty — no model guesswork. Books (ISBN), guidelines, title-only citations, and other non-indexed sources are returned as Tier 2 (Content review needed), never as fabrications.

Preferred command (local binary):

evidentia check <file-or-url> --format json --cache "$HOME/.cache/evidentia/verification-cache.json" --mailto <your-email>

Fallback if the local binary is unavailable:

npx -y evidentia check <file-or-url> --format json --cache "$HOME/.cache/evidentia/verification-cache.json" --mailto <your-email>

Engine loop: if unreachable, retry once. If still down, mark those citations unresolved (not Hallucination) and continue. Never guess a Hallucination without a failed identifier lookup.

Use its output as the ground truth for citation existence. Inspect lookupVerified and resolverOutcomes when explaining why a citation was classified. Write the engine tier into the claim ledger.

4a2. CITADEL-style title confirmation (every T4)

Read references/citadel-confirmation.md. For every engine Tier 4, search the claimed title from the draft in PubMed, Crossref/OpenAlex, and one Scholar-like web search before you write KILL.

• 0 hits in all → fabrication confirmed. Keep T4. KILL if presented as real.
• Title exists under another identifier → keep T4 for the cited id. Do not upgrade to T1. Still KILL if the draft presents that id as that paper. Note "claimed work may exist under another id."
• Never override T4 because authors sound real or the journal/year match.

This is not a new engine tier. The engine remains ground truth for the identifier.

4a3. Retraction check (every T1)

For every Tier 1, check PubMed "Retracted Publication" / Crossref update-to. If retracted: ledger note retracted. T1 stays T1 (the paper existed). It cannot ship as current evidence unless the draft says so.

• Tier 1 (Verified) — the paper, preprint, or trial exists and metadata matches. Proceed to the context check in 4b.
• Tier 2 (Content review needed) — the source may be real, but the engine cannot deterministically verify it in registries, or semantic use still needs review.
• Tier 3 (Bibliographic mismatch) — a real record exists, but the DOI/PMID/arXiv/NCT identifier or metadata is wrong. Record the discrepancy.
• Tier 4 (Hallucination) — the identifier resolves to nothing or to a different paper. Flag as a fabricated citation immediately; this is the highest-severity finding.

If the engine is not available, fall back to verifying each identifier manually with WebSearch (steps below). Still do not invent a Hallucination for ISBN/guideline/title-only sources.

4b. Semantic loop (honesty — the engine cannot do this)

For every citation the engine marked Verified (Tier 1), still confirm it is used honestly:

1. Fetch the abstract (WebSearch / WebFetch) and cross-check it against the cited claim — primary outcome, population, direction of effect.
2. Evaluate context — is the citation cherry-picked or accurately represented?
3. Downgrade to Tier 2 (Content review needed) if a real paper is being misrepresented or cited out of context. Set semantic to mismatch or cherry-pick.

Semantic loop cap: one extra lookup per citation, then stop. Paywalled with no abstract → semantic n/a, note "abstract unavailable," leave the engine tier in place. Do not use this loop to upgrade a Tier 3 or 4.

Manual fallback (if the engine is unavailable)

1. Search by DOI, PMID, or title to locate the original paper
2. DOI cross-verification — confirm the DOI resolves to the claimed paper (matching title, authors, journal)
3. Cross-check the abstract against the cited claims and evaluate context

AI Hallucination Detection (Critical)

AI-generated text (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.) frequently contains plausible but fabricated citations. When a citation cannot be confirmed, perform these additional checks:

• Does the DOI point to a completely different paper? (Search the DOI directly and compare title/authors)
• Does the author actually exist and publish in this field?
• Do the journal name, volume, and page numbers match a real publication?

Do NOT stop at "could not verify." Actively determine whether the citation is unverifiable or provably fabricated. Engine-down is unresolved, not Hallucination.

Classify each citation into one of 4 tiers:

Tier	Classification	Description
1	Verified	Paper exists and content matches the citation
2	Content review needed	The paper is real, but whether it is used in the right context needs a human or an LLM. Also used when the engine cannot verify the source in registries (books, guidelines, title-only).
3	Bibliographic mismatch	Paper exists but DOI, author, or journal info is wrong
4	Hallucination	DOI points to an unrelated paper, or the paper does not exist

Step 5: Detailed Evaluation

Rate each of the 15 items using these dimensions:

• Current state: objective description of how the content handles this criterion
• Issues: specific problems identified (or "None")
• Suggestions: concrete, actionable improvements (if issues exist)
• Rating: Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor

Do not recommend treatments. Suggestions are about how the content should be rewritten (cite the primary paper, add ARR, hedge the causal verb) — not about what a patient or clinician should take.

Media-Specific Evaluation Adjustments

Criterion	Social Media	Marketing	Guidelines	Patient Materials
#1 Evidence level	Expect source links	Heightened scrutiny	GRADE required	Simplified OK
#2 Citations	At minimum, name sources	Full disclosure required	Systematic search required	Source available on request
#6 Exaggeration	Very common — flag aggressively	Primary concern	Should be absent	Watch for false reassurance
#7 Population fit	Often ignored — flag	Check indication scope	Must be explicit	Must match audience
#9 Readability	Platform-appropriate	Accessible to HCPs + public	HCP-level acceptable	6th-grade reading level
#10 Ethics	Check stigma/fear	Check manipulation	Check COI panel	Check dignity/autonomy
#12 Images	Memes, infographics	Selective visuals	Evidence figures	Clear illustrations

Step 5.5: Adversarial review (mandatory)

Read references/adversarial-review.md with the Read tool. Run the five lenses (citation integrity, claim support, statistics and language, harm, steelman-then-attack). Answer the 10-line attack checklist (yes/no + evidence). Emit KILL / MAJOR / MINOR / PASS.

• KILL — any Tier 4 presented as real, or advice that could cause harm if followed. Content must not be published as-is. Overall score ≤ D (F if ethics/harm/fabrication). This is the system working.
• MAJOR — real sources, dishonest use, causal overclaim, missing fair balance. Must fix before publish. Cannot be an A.
• MINOR — hedging, currency, readability. Should fix.
• PASS — ship with stated caveats. Human still owns publish.

KILL or MAJOR: do not emit a clean A-score as if publishable; tell the user the content must change. If they revise, re-enter from the engine (Step 4), not from scoring. Max 3 adversarial passes per document.

Step 6: Determine Overall Score

Aggregate the 15 item ratings into an A–F score using the criteria table in the Overview section, then apply the adversarial gates above.

Additionally, flag a Public Health Risk Assessment:

• LOW RISK: Content is broadly accurate; issues are minor or stylistic
• MEDIUM RISK: Content has meaningful inaccuracies that could mislead readers
• HIGH RISK: Content promotes harmful actions, contains fabricated evidence, or targets vulnerable populations with dangerous misinformation

Step 7: Generate Report

Read the report template from templates/report-template.md (in this skill's directory) with the Read tool and produce the structured report.

Required sections:

1. Content Overview — title, source, audience, date, media type
2. Overall Assessment — score, adversarial verdict, key issues summary, risk level, recommended actions
3. Detailed Evaluation — all 15 items with ratings, issues, and suggestions
4. Citation Verification Results — engine vs semantic columns; paste or summarize engine JSON; use Content review needed (the previous mismatch wording is retired)
5. Adversarial review — lenses, steelman, attack, checklist, verdict
6. Loop log — engine runs, semantic lookups, adversarial pass #, remaining issues
7. Critical Concerns — flagged high-severity issues
8. Strengths — positive aspects worth noting
9. Suggested Corrections — before/after comparison text (if issues found)
10. References — sources used during evaluation
11. Evaluator Notes — overall commentary and caveats

Step 8: Deliver Report

Save the completed report as a Markdown file using Write:

• File name: medical-fact-check-report-YYYY-MM-DD.md in the current directory
• If a report with that name already exists, append a suffix: -2, -3, etc.
• Provide the user with:
  • The file path
  • A concise summary of findings (3–5 sentences)
  • The overall score, adversarial verdict, and risk level
  • The ship stamp (no / caveats / human-ack) from references/ship-gate.md — default on for AMPL / org QA
  • Top 3 most important issues to address

Step 9: Correction loop (up to 3)

Not optional. If the user revises the content based on the report:

1. Re-read the revised content.
2. Re-run the engine on the document (at least every changed or new citation).
3. Re-run the semantic loop on changed Tier 1 citations.
4. Re-run adversarial review (counts toward the 3-pass cap). Re-enter from the engine, not from scoring.
5. Update the claim ledger, loop log, and recommended-actions checklist.
6. Check that corrections have not introduced new problems (shifted reference numbers, new causal verbs).
7. List remaining unresolved issues.
8. Save the updated report with a -rev2 (or -rev3) suffix.

Cap: 3. Then stop and report what is still open. Do not raise the letter grade while a KILL/MAJOR or a new Tier 4 remains.

Media-Specific Handling

Social Media Posts

Short-form content requires particular attention to:

• Accuracy maintained despite brevity constraints
• Absence of critical caveats or disclaimers
• Clickbait titles or misleading framing
• Whether sources are linked or accessible
• Potential for viral spread of misinformation (amplification risk)

Video & Podcast Transcripts

Audio/video content often has unique issues:

• Host editorialization beyond guest expert statements
• Verbal hedging that doesn't survive transcription
• Unsubstantiated anecdotes presented as evidence
• Missing visual context in audio-only formats
• Show notes or descriptions that may overstate content

Conference Presentations & Slides

Slide decks present compressed information:

• Oversimplification of complex findings to fit slides
• Missing citations on individual slides
• Unpublished data presented without caveats
• Potential COI with industry-sponsored presentations
• Conclusions drawn from preliminary/incomplete data

Clinical Guidelines

Guidelines demand the highest methodological standards:

• AGREE II framework compliance
• Systematic literature review methodology
• GRADE evidence assessment
• Panel member COI disclosures
• Update currency and version control
• Patient/public involvement in development

Pharmaceutical & Device Marketing

Marketing materials require heightened skepticism:

• Selective presentation of favorable trial results
• Relative risk reduction without absolute figures
• Off-label use implications
• Regulatory compliance of claims
• Fair balance between efficacy and safety data
• Comparator selection bias

AI-Generated Medical Content

LLM-generated content requires the most rigorous citation checking:

• Apply hallucination detection to ALL citations
• Verify specific statistics, percentages, and dates
• Check for "confident confabulation" — authoritative tone on incorrect facts
• Flag instances where the AI fills knowledge gaps with plausible fiction
• Verify named entities (researchers, institutions, journals)

Patient-Facing Materials

Patient materials prioritize accessibility and safety:

• Reading level appropriate for target audience (aim for 6th-grade level for general public)
• No unnecessary fear-mongering or false reassurance
• Clear action items and when to seek professional help
• Respect for patient autonomy and informed decision-making
• Cultural sensitivity and inclusivity

Best Practices for Report Writing

1. Be specific — not "there is a problem" but "Section 3, paragraph 2 claims X, but the cited study actually found Y"
2. Be constructive — always pair criticism with a concrete suggestion
3. Be balanced — acknowledge strengths alongside weaknesses
4. Cite your sources — reference the guidelines or papers that inform your evaluation
5. Consider the audience — evaluation standards differ for professional vs. public content
6. Stay practical — improvement suggestions should be realistic and actionable
7. Disclose limitations — acknowledge what this AI-based review can and cannot verify
8. Record the loops — engine JSON, semantic lookups, adversarial pass number, remaining issues belong in the report, not only in your head

Caveats

1. Not a substitute for expert judgment — this is an AI-based evaluation tool
2. Full-text access is limited — verification relies on abstracts, open-access articles, and bibliographic metadata
3. Image evaluation is limited — cannot deeply analyze embedded figures or video content
4. Rapidly evolving fields — the most current evidence may not yet be indexed
5. Final medical decisions should always be made by qualified healthcare professionals
6. Not CDS — do not recommend treatments; the human publishes

Reference Files

• references/verification-workflow.md — operating model, two layers, named loops, hard rules (must-read before scoring)
• references/adversarial-review.md — five lenses, attack checklist, KILL/MAJOR/MINOR/PASS (must-read before scoring)
• references/citadel-confirmation.md — claimed-title confirmation after T4; T1 retraction check
• references/ship-gate.md — AMPL / publisher pre-publish QA (cannot-ship rules, integrity stamp)
• references/checklist.md — detailed 15-item evaluation checklist
• references/evidence-levels.md — evidence hierarchy & quality assessment tools
• templates/claim-ledger.md — claim table filled before the engine call
• templates/report-template.md — structured report template (verdict, engine JSON, loop log)

External References

• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
• GRADE Working Group
• AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation)
• AMSTAR 2 (A MeAsurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews)
• CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA reporting guidelines
• FDA / PMDA / EMA advertising and promotion regulations
• DISCERN (quality of health information for patients)
• HONcode (Health On the Net Foundation)