TruaceTracing the truth around AIThursday, August 27, 2026
The Index

What the evidence says.What the public feels.

Ranks distinct AI gain and problem claims from the published record. Scores reward impact, independent source strength, scale, confidence, and recency.

1,169 results
Show filters and sorting

AI gains · 649

68
GainMedia & Arts· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Proposes a Four-Dimensional Evaluation Framework for agentic AI in journalism covering technical quality, human-organizational alignment, ethical-governance responsibility, and trust-value impact to balance innovation with accountability.

As of November 2025, this peer-reviewed review examines agentic AI in newsrooms that can autonomously plan, decide, and generate content. Analyzing 46 sources from 2015-2025, it finds current evaluations emphasize technical accuracy and efficiency while neglecting trust, governance, and collaboration.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%99

Updated Aug 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0868

68
GainHealth· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Integrated single-cell analysis and three machine learning algorithms identified GLS and LPIN2 as upregulated key genes in kidney stones that promote fibroblast-to-myofibroblast transition, ROS production, calcium deposition and osteogenic-like differentiation, supporting a risk prediction nomogram and drug prediction.

By August 2026, a multi-omics study combined single-cell and bulk RNA-seq from GEO with three machine learning algorithms to screen for kidney stone drivers, identifying GLS and LPIN2 as upregulated in fibroblasts and building a risk prediction nomogram.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%99

Updated Aug 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0867

68
GainHealth· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Causal Forest analysis of Stage II-III gastric cancer patients found lymph node ratio was the dominant predictor of individualized benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, with high-LNR patients showing improved survival.

Researchers used a Causal Forest causal machine learning model on a retrospective cohort of gastric cancer patients treated between 2007 and 2017 to estimate who benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy. The model identified lymph node ratio as the most dominant predictor of benefit, with a significant interaction at a 0.25 threshold in a propensity-matched Stage II-III cohort.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%99

Updated Aug 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0866

68
GainHealth· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

A 16-gene macrophage-associated signature developed with ridge regression and XGBoost stratified HCC patients and achieved high diagnostic discrimination, with LGALS1 emerging as a top feature linked to survival and treatment response.

On August 22, 2026, researchers reported an integrative analysis combining single-cell RNA-sequencing with bulk transcriptomic and clinical data from TCGA-LIHC, GEO, and ICGC to find macrophage-associated biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma. They derived a 16-gene signature that stratified tumors by survival and clinicopathological features, with ridge regression showing AUC 0.988 in TCGA-LIHC and 0.895-0.924 externally, and XGBoost SHAP identifying LGALS1 as highly informative.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%99

Updated Aug 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0865

AI problems · 520

68
ProblemPolicy· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Human Digital Remains created by AI from personal and biometric data face existing legal and ethical gaps because neither GDPR nor the AI Act currently extends rights to the deceased.

The paper examines how AI and extended reality enable creation of avatars and human digital twins from personal and biometric data that persist after death as Human Digital Remains. Using cross-disciplinary analysis and doctrinal review, it finds that current EU instruments do not extend protections to the deceased and identifies urgent legal and ethical gaps.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%95

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0620

68
ProblemHealth· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Inefficient low-power field target detection, reflected in longer fixation duration on the LPF main object, predicts lower diagnostic accuracy, while traditional years of professional experience fails to predict accuracy in digital cytology.

Researchers eye-tracked 100 cytotechnologists diagnosing 30 digital cytology images and then tracked 28 students before and after a 3-month training program. They found years of experience did not predict accuracy, while shorter fixation on the low-power field main object did, and students markedly improved time to first target fixation and reduced background attention after training.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%95

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0619

68
ProblemHealth· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

There are few controlled clinical trials that directly compare AI tools to traditional medical literature and clinical experience for hypertension on key endpoints of real clinical value to prove superiority.

By August 2026, peer-reviewed discussion in Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia described AI as entering hypertension care, able to give simple and well-documented answers to management questions for practicing physicians, while also being explored in research to identify secondary hypertension and predict future hypertension and complications such as heart failure.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%95

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0617

68
ProblemHealth· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Responses showed comparatively lower inclusivity, high reading complexity, and lacked nuance for complex or individualized clinical scenarios.

In this cross-sectional study published August 1 2026, researchers asked GPT-4 via ChatGPT to answer 20 common psychosis psychoeducation questions sourced from a first-episode psychosis programme, then had two psychosis experts independently rate the answers on accuracy, clarity, inclusivity, completeness, clinical utility and overall quality.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%95

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0613

Recomputed live from the record · Aug 27, 2026, 10:06 PM