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.

1,419 results
Show filters and sorting

AI gains · 788

70
GainPolicy· Rising· Evidence: High (5 sources)

Breakthroughs in algorithmic machine learning and autonomous decision-making are engendering new opportunities for continued innovation and augmentation of human tasks.

The source text presents AI as a transformative force comparable to the industrial revolution, highlighting a staggering pace of change driven by breakthroughs in algorithmic machine learning and autonomous decision-making. It states this enables augmentation and potential replacement of human tasks across industrial, intellectual and social applications, with potential disruption to finance, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, supply chain, logistics and utilities.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%100
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%100
Recency 10%87

Updated Jul 12, 2026 · TRV-2026-0049

69
GainScience· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Life-science physics students engaged in prompting, refining, and validating generative AI-constructed simulations as a new method for virtual learning about physical phenomena.

As of the September 2025 publication date, researchers investigated a novel use of generative AI in physics instruction where students in a second-semester course for life science majors were asked to prompt, refine, and validate AI-constructed simulations of physical phenomena in a lab focused on electric topics, comparing three instructional approaches.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%100

Updated Sep 15, 2026 · TRV-2026-1100

69
GainHealth· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

Random forest with SHAP and network analysis among 6573 adolescents ranked key contributors to IGD risk and identified central nodes, which may inform early risk identification.

By September 2026, researchers reported using four machine learning algorithms to classify Internet Gaming Disorder risk among 6573 adolescents, selecting a random forest model after comprehensive performance evaluation. They applied SHAP to rank feature contributions and network analysis to map interrelationships among psychosocial factors.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%100

Updated Sep 15, 2026 · TRV-2026-1097

69
GainHealth· Newly added· Evidence: Moderate (1 source)

A Random Forest trained on 22 routine clinical variables predicted unplanned 90-day psychiatric readmission in adults with MDD with moderate discrimination.

The DEEP READ prospective study across 13 Italian provinces followed 322 adults with major depressive disorder discharged from inpatient care and tested whether routinely collected clinical information could predict unplanned psychiatric readmission within 90 days. A Random Forest classifier trained on 22 predictors achieved a mean test AUC of 0.74 in internal cross-validation, with 50 patients (15.5%) readmitted.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%100

Updated Sep 15, 2026 · TRV-2026-1096

AI problems · 631

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

When used for prostate MRI reporting, LLMs can hallucinate measurements, flip negations, misstate laterality, and overstate cancer likelihood, creating patient-safety and accountability risks especially if reports are copied outside clinical governance.

Published August 17 2026 in Abdominal Radiology, this Perspective examines large language models applied to prostate MRI reporting, a task where laterality, sector, size, PI-RADS, and staging language directly affect biopsy and treatment decisions and where patients often see reports via portals before clinician discussion.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%94

Updated Aug 18, 2026 · TRV-2026-0828

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

Current AI systems for psychological assessment and treatment have not shown ability to produce meaningful and sustained clinical change, falling short due to memory limits, sycophancy, and focus on short-term helpfulness.

On 2026-08-17, a peer-reviewed framework paper argued that while large language models could augment psychological assessment and treatment, current technologies have not demonstrated sustained clinical benefit. The authors attribute this to poor integration of clinical science and to a duration mismatch between brief AI chats and months-long evidence-based treatments.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%94

Updated Aug 18, 2026 · TRV-2026-0821

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

Perceived risk around AIGC reduced fashion designers' feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness, undermining psychological conditions for adoption.

Researchers examined why fashion designers adopt Artificial Intelligence Generated Content, which is described as increasingly used in creative design. Using the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework combined with Self-Determination Theory, they surveyed 318 Chinese fashion-design practitioners and analyzed 21 items with PLS-SEM to link perceived risk, social influence and facilitating conditions to autonomy, competence, relatedness and behavioral intention.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%94

Updated Aug 18, 2026 · TRV-2026-0818

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

AI systems applied to healthcare decision-making, medical diagnosis, and other domains can lead to unfair outcomes that perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce harmful stereotypes, including generative biases in synthetic media.

A peer-reviewed survey published December 26, 2023 reviewed literature on fairness and bias in AI, focusing on sources such as data, algorithm, and human decision biases and the emerging issue of generative AI bias in synthetic media across healthcare, employment, criminal justice, and credit scoring.

Impact 30%49
Evidence 25%95
Scale 20%35
Confidence 15%87
Recency 10%94

Updated Aug 17, 2026 · TRV-2026-0813

Recomputed live from the record · Sep 16, 2026, 3:08 AM