← Evidence Graph
CL-0002 / ORIGINAL CLAIM · V1.0
Do MAI-DxO's retrospective results establish benefits for real patients?
Microsoft AI
Status shown is from the original October 2026 claim snapshot. This page is not a new outcome certification or a revised historical record.
01 / What evidence shows
What is actually documented?
Microsoft reported 83% diagnostic accuracy over 304 retrospective complex cases. The reported clinician comparison used a smaller 56-case subset; patient benefits are unproven.
What remains uncertain?
The 304-case evaluation and the 56-case physician subset must not be treated as equal comparison samples.
Next evidence required: Prospective clinical evaluations with independent review, diagnostic safety and patient outcomes.
02 / Signal evolution
What was documented, and when?
The entries below are reproduced from the case’s original version-1 research timeline, not newly inferred status changes. Future material developments must appear as separate dated revisions.
Original entry 1Oct 22, 2026 | Research disclosed | Microsoft described sequential-diagnosis benchmarks and its diagnostic orchestrator.
Original entry 2Oct 23, 2026 | Cortist analysis | The different evaluation denominators and prospective validation limits were documented.
Most recent scheduled source review: 2026-11-05 · PROSPECTIVE_OUTCOMES_NOT_ESTABLISHED. A source review does not by itself change the original claim status.
03 / Continue the audit