Unverified50% confidenceDecision RuleExact time
The systematic review field widely recognizes that the cost of missing critical literature (false negatives) far exceeds that of incorrectly including irrelevant literature (false positives), and therefore the evaluation framework must place recall at its core.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
9/28/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedPassing brief summaries is low-cost but may erase critical evidence and quietly turn inferences into facts, preventing downstream agents from determining whether information represents an explicit decision or a model guess.74% similarUnverifiedThe challenge with score normalization is that when a knowledge base contains no truly relevant documents, the highest score after normalization may still be pushed up to the same level as relevant results from other bases, creating an illusion of high scores for irrelevant results.72% similarUnverifiedIn high-stakes scenarios such as legal document verification and medical evidence review, the cost of missing one critical counter-evidence is far greater than the cost of reading redundant documents.72% similarUnverifiedIn data quality validation, the costs of different errors are asymmetric: incorrectly accepting dirty data may cause downstream analysis to break down, while falsely rejecting good data only loses one sample.72% similarUnverified低质量的知识库会导致幻觉式引用，即模型看似使用知识库内容实则引用了错误或无关片段71% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/955691API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/955691MCP
get_claim(id=955691)