Decide less, communicate more: On the construct validity of end-to-end fact-checking in medicine
Sebastian Joseph, Lily Chen, Barry Wei, Michael Mackert, Iain J. Marshall, Paul Pu Liang, Ramez Kouzy, Byron C. Wallace, Junyi Jessy Li

TL;DR
This paper examines the challenges of applying end-to-end fact-checking systems in medicine, highlighting fundamental issues and proposing a shift towards viewing fact-checking as an interactive communication process.
Contribution
It provides the first study of how clinical experts verify social media claims with medical evidence and identifies key challenges in automated medical fact-checking.
Findings
Difficulties in linking social media claims to scientific evidence
Ambiguities in underspecified claims and mismatched intentions
Subjectivity in veracity labels for medical claims
Abstract
Technological progress has led to concrete advancements in tasks that were regarded as challenging, such as automatic fact-checking. Interest in adopting these systems for public health and medicine has grown due to the high-stakes nature of medical decisions and challenges in critically appraising a vast and diverse medical literature. Evidence-based medicine connects to every individual, and yet the nature of it is highly technical, rendering the medical literacy of majority users inadequate to sufficiently navigate the domain. Such problems with medical communication ripen the ground for end-to-end fact-checking agents: check a claim against current medical literature and return with an evidence-backed verdict. And yet, such systems remain largely unused. In this position paper, developed with expert input, we present the first study examining how clinical experts verify real…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
