The exact text we saved

This is the version exactly as it was saved, character for character. The SHA-256 hash below is a 64-character code worked out from that text. Run the same text through SHA-256 and you get the same code; change a single letter and the code comes out completely different. Each version also stores the previous version’s hash, which chains them together so no version can be swapped out quietly.

TRUVACE RECORD VERSION
record: TRV-2026-2707
version: 1
kind: certified
reason: Certified into the record
timestamp: 2026-11-12T17:12:18.104255Z
status: published
lens: p_space
sector: science
headline: Human Consensus Versus Generative Artificial Intelligence When Assessing the Methodological Quality and Overall Confidence in the Results of Systematic Reviews With Meta‐Analysis in Endodontology
dek: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the level of agreement between ChatGPT-5.5 and human assessments when appraising the methodological quality and overall confidence of the results of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis (MA) in endodontology. METHODS: SRs with MA related to endodontology and published in English between 2021 and 2024 were included. The methodological quality of the SRs was appraised by three human experts using AMSTAR 2, and a consensus dataset was generated. ChatGPT-5.5 was applied to generate AMST…
gain_title: (none)
problem_title: In a study of 100 endodontology systematic reviews, ChatGPT-5.5 matched three human experts' overall confidence rating in only 52% of reviews (weighted κ = 0.182) and rated 85 as critically low versus 47 for the experts.
trace_subject: (none)
gain_reading: (none)
gain_evidence: (none)
problem_reading: In a study of 100 endodontology systematic reviews, ChatGPT-5.5 matched three human experts' overall confidence rating in only 52% of reviews (weighted κ = 0.182) and rated 85 as critically low versus 47 for the experts.
problem_evidence: overall confidence matched in 52/100 SRs (52%; weighted κ = 0.182) | Human consensus and ChatGPT-5.5 classified 47 and 85 SRs, respectively, as critically low.
quick_read: Researchers compared ChatGPT-5.5 with three human experts using the AMSTAR 2 tool to judge the methodological quality of 100 systematic reviews with meta-analysis in endodontology, published in English between 2021 and 2024. Overall confidence matched in 52 of the 100 reviews, with a weighted kappa of 0.182.

The chatbot was harsher than the experts: it classed 85 reviews as critically low confidence, compared with 47 by human consensus. When the rules for handling 'Partial Yes' ratings were changed, direct agreement rose to 83%, but the chance-corrected kappa stayed similar at 0.173.

The authors concluded the findings do not support using ChatGPT-5.5 as an independent AMSTAR 2 assessor. Any exploratory use would need item-by-item checks by reviewers with methodological expertise.
limitation: The study tested a single model, ChatGPT-5.5, on 100 English-language endodontology reviews, and the authors note that between-account consistency did not ensure agreement with human judgements.
tag: Evidence-backed problem
key_points: The study covered 100 systematic reviews with meta-analysis in endodontology, published in English from 2021 to 2024. | Three human experts rated each review with AMSTAR 2 and produced a consensus dataset. | ChatGPT-5.5 rated each review through three newly created accounts. | Overall confidence matched human consensus in 52% of reviews (weighted κ = 0.182). | ChatGPT-5.5 classed 85 reviews as critically low versus 47 for human experts. | With 'Partial Yes' counted as 'No', direct agreement rose to 83% but kappa stayed at 0.173. | Overall confidence was identical across the three accounts in 85 reviews, and item-level agreement across accounts was 86.12%. | Among the sampled reviews, 15% met the criterion for reporting primary-study funding and 21% for justifying study designs.
rundown: The team used AMSTAR 2, a tool for appraising systematic reviews, on 100 endodontology reviews with meta-analysis. Three human experts produced a consensus rating, and ChatGPT-5.5 generated item-level ratings and overall confidence classifications through three newly created accounts.

Agreement was assessed using direct agreement and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa. Under the primary criterion (Partial Yes = Yes), overall confidence matched in 52% of reviews. Under the alternative criterion (Partial Yes = No), agreement rose to 83%, while kappa stayed similar at 0.173, so the higher figure reflected how Partial Yes was handled rather than better chance-corrected agreement.

Agreement varied substantially across individual AMSTAR 2 items. The chatbot's outputs were frequently consistent across the three accounts, but that consistency did not ensure concordance with human judgement. The authors say any exploratory use requires item-by-item verification by reviewers with methodological expertise.
sources:
- peer_reviewed | International Endodontic Journal | https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.70297 | 2026-10-28
prev: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

SHA-256 hash

03058ef4a3beb16018d51b3bde737acd13dd94f98599a1fa6f42fdfcd141f116

Previous version’s hash

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000