Truace
Subscribe
The Index recomputed live from the record

What the evidence says.What the public feels.

The record holds 935 sourced gains and 771 sourced problems, averaging 68 and 66 on the index score. Readers have logged 22 public signals on the Pulse, which is kept apart and never counted as evidence.

935 gains
771 problems
Every sourced claim in the Index, one square each, shaded by the strength of its evidence. High Moderate Emerging

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

1,706 results
Show filters and sorting

Download every matching row, not just this page:Export CSVExport JSON

AI gains · 935

385
EducationStableModerate evidence · 1 source

GenAI chatbots like ChatGPT can assist university writing across six tasks from brainstorming to evaluating at a level similar to humans.

In a November 2023 peer-reviewed study, researchers surveyed 68 educators and 158 university students about when generative AI should be used in academic writing. Participants reviewed ChatGPT prompts and outputs for brainstorming, outlining, writing, revising, feedback, and evaluating, and rated acceptability for student versus teacher use.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
93

Updated Sep 7, 2026 · TRV-2026-1012

68Index score
386
HealthStableModerate evidence · 1 source

AI models analyzing multiomics data can guide microbiome-based dietary interventions and support obesity management to prevent and manage chronic diseases.

By October 2025, peer-reviewed literature described AI as a key enabler of personalized nutrition, using machine learning to analyze multiomics datasets and guide microbiome-based dietary interventions for obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disorders with support from digital twins and health knowledge graphs.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
93

Updated Sep 7, 2026 · TRV-2026-1011

68Index score
387
HealthStableModerate evidence · 1 source

GIN-CRC-Pareto improved identification of miRNA-mRNA interactions in colorectal cancer, achieving 0.909 accuracy and 0.969 AUC on binding pair prediction and outperforming existing tools.

Researchers described GIN-CRC-Pareto, a graph-based multi-task learning system designed to predict miRNA-mRNA binding pairs, identify seed match pairings, and classify seed match subtypes in colorectal cancer. By publication on 2026-09-05, experiments showed strong predictive performance including 0.909 accuracy and 0.969 AUC on the binding prediction task.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
93

Updated Sep 7, 2026 · TRV-2026-1010

68Index score
388
HealthStableModerate evidence · 1 source

H2O AutoML trained on 4713 MESA participants using 21 selected predictors achieved higher discrimination than logistic regression and traditional ML models, reaching AUC 0.882 and accuracy 0.864, intended as a practical tool for clinician risk stratification.

In a prospective cohort analysis of 4713 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, researchers developed a 10-year CVD risk model integrating clinical, lifestyle, and cognitive measures. After selecting 21 predictors, they trained logistic regression, traditional machine learning models, and H2O AutoML, with AutoML achieving the highest performance at AUC 0.882 and accuracy 0.864 by the September 2026 publication date.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
93

Updated Sep 7, 2026 · TRV-2026-1009

68Index score

AI problems · 771

385
HealthStableModerate evidence · 1 source

Federated learning deployments in smart healthcare remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks, data poisoning, and model inversion, plus practical barriers of heterogeneous data, scalability, and system interoperability.

This peer-reviewed review from December 2024 examines federated learning as a decentralized approach for smart healthcare, where institutions collaborate on machine learning without sharing raw patient data, integrated with IoT devices, wearables, and remote monitoring for real-time predictive analytics.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
84

Updated Jul 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0550

67Index score
386
PolicyStableModerate evidence · 1 source

Learners using ChatGPT may develop dependence on the tool and exhibit metacognitive laziness that hinders self-regulation and deep engagement.

In a December 2024 randomized lab experiment, 117 university students completed a writing task with support from ChatGPT, a human expert, analytics tools, or no extra support. Researchers measured intrinsic motivation, self-regulated learning processes, and performance, finding no motivation differences but different process patterns and higher essay score gains for the ChatGPT group without higher knowledge gain or transfer.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
84

Updated Jul 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0548

67Index score
387
EducationStableModerate evidence · 1 source

Generative AI integration in higher education threatens academic integrity and equity by undermining authenticity of student work and widening inequalities.

Published January 9 2025 in the British Journal of Biomedical Science, this peer-reviewed review examines how generative AI is being integrated into higher education, noting opportunities for personalised learning and innovative assessment alongside challenges to integrity and equity.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
84

Updated Jul 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0546

67Index score
388
EducationRisingModerate evidence · 1 source

Frequent AI tool usage was associated with reduced critical thinking abilities, mediated by increased cognitive offloading.

A mixed-method study of 666 participants examined how AI tool usage relates to critical thinking, with cognitive offloading as a mediating factor. By publication on Jan 3 2025, authors reported a significant negative correlation between frequent AI use and critical thinking abilities.

Impact 30%
49
Evidence 25%
95
Scale 20%
35
Confidence 15%
87
Recency 10%
84

Updated Jul 24, 2026 · TRV-2026-0545

67Index score

Recomputed live from the record · Oct 13, 2026, 2:22 AM