TruaceTracing the truth around AITuesday, September 15, 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.

1,418 results
Show filters and sorting

AI gains · 787

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

Integrating large-scale transcriptomic profiling with machine learning identified a three-gene blood signature that enables early sepsis diagnosis and risk stratification across severity levels.

By August 1, 2026, researchers reported integrating large-scale transcriptomic profiling with machine learning to identify TLR5, HMGB2, and C19orf59 as a blood-based diagnostic signature for sepsis. They mapped expression to myeloid cells and tested the panel across SOFA-defined severity strata, then validated it in sham-controlled CLP mice, LPS-stimulated cells, and sepsis patient serum.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%91

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0615

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

AI-generated subtitles for ECFS e-learning modules enabled quick and affordable creation of multilingual education packages in Ukrainian, Romanian, and Turkish that achieved high accuracy after expert editing.

Researchers piloted AI translation to subtitle ECFS peer-reviewed e-learning modules for cystic fibrosis care, creating six-module packages in Ukrainian, Romanian, and Turkish. Each AI draft was reviewed and edited by two native-speaking CF healthcare experts, and an online survey of users in two countries collected 18 responses on quality.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%91

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0614

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

GPT-4 generated responses to 20 psychosis psychoeducational questions that were rated highly for accuracy, clarity, completeness and clinical utility.

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%91

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0613

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

Generative AI can personalize radiology trainee learning pathways and generate synthetic imaging cases and board-style questions to augment curriculum planning and assessment.

This 2026 RadioGraphics review examines how artificial intelligence, especially generative models, could be applied across radiology education from curriculum planning to implementation and evaluation using Harden's 10-step framework.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%91

Updated Aug 1, 2026 · TRV-2026-0612

AI problems · 631

67
ProblemScience· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Autonomous research systems could overwhelm peer review infrastructure and pollute scientific literature with low-quality or noisy papers.

Researchers built The AI Scientist, an agentic system using foundation models to automate conception, coding, experimentation, data analysis, manuscript writing, and peer review. By March 2026 they reported that a manuscript fully generated by the system passed first-round review for a workshop at a top-tier machine learning conference.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%88

Updated Jul 13, 2026 · TRV-2026-0163

67
ProblemLabor· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Relying on passive AI copying at work reduced self-efficacy, psychological ownership, and work meaningfulness, with declines in efficacy and meaningfulness persisting after returning to manual work.

Researchers ran a pre-registered lab experiment with 269 participants doing occupation-specific writing under no AI, passive AI copying, or active drafting-then-refining, plus a 270-person real-world survey. Passive copying reduced self-efficacy, ownership, and meaningfulness, with efficacy and meaningfulness losses persisting after returning to manual work, while active collaboration preserved connection similar to working alone.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%88

Updated Jul 13, 2026 · TRV-2026-0160

67
ProblemPolicy· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Generative AI tools capable of producing wholly or partially synthetic CSAM increase risks of revictimization of known survivors, creation of synthetic material depicting children not previously abused, and facilitation of grooming, coercion, and sexual extortion.

As of its publication date 2026-04-06, this peer-reviewed primer examined generative AI systems able to produce wholly or partially synthetic child sexual abuse material and catalogued reported harms from technical, psychological, criminological, and law enforcement sources.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%88

Updated Jul 13, 2026 · TRV-2026-0157

67
ProblemPolicy· Stable· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Rapid proliferation of AI-mediated digital afterlife technologies including chatbots trained on personal data, voice clones and posthumous avatars has created moral risks of posthumous simulation without operational governance constraints.

As of the June 2026 publication date, the authors describe a rapid proliferation of AI-mediated digital afterlife technologies and a growing ethical literature on their risks, without a matching operational framework. They propose a nine-dimensional taxonomy and a two-tier constraint model where consent, fidelity/disclosure, and purpose serve as threshold conditions for permissibility.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%88

Updated Jul 13, 2026 · TRV-2026-0153

Recomputed live from the record · Sep 15, 2026, 7:41 AM