# Real PubMed IDs can still point to the wrong evidence
> A preprint found most cited PubMed IDs existed while few were judged relevant.
By BIGCHANGE.AI Editorial
Published: 2026-10-25T13:44:39.985Z
Updated: 2026-10-25T13:44:39.985Z
Canonical: https://bigchange.ai/blog/real-pubmed-ids-wrong-evidence-biomedical-agents

AI-generated conceptual illustration by BIG CHANGE.
An October 21 preprint found that 327 of 335 PubMed IDs supplied by closed-book agents resolved to real records. A separate language-model judge rated only three of those 327 relevant to the biomedical claims.
Author Mohammed Saqlain compared closed-book answering, fixed-query PubMed retrieval, agent-written queries and an oracle given the correct abstracts. Each ran on 100 sampled SciFact development claims with two Gemini Flash Lite models. Agent search reached 62% verdict accuracy with both; its advantage over other realistic setups was not statistically significant. Oracle accuracy reached 79% and 86%.
## The big change
A citation existence check leaves relevance untested. The relevance finding rests on one automated judge checked against 50 controls. This small, single-provider study does not establish clinical reliability.
## Sources
- [Saqlain's preprint](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.29812v1) — Methods, citation audit and statistical limits.
The BIG CHANGE newsletter
The big picture. At your pace.
Recent stories on AI and robotics, the shifts worth watching and practical ideas to use. Choose a daily briefing, weekly digest or monthly perspective.
Next scheduled send (UTC): . Your first edition arrives at the next scheduled send after you confirm.
Your privacy, your choice.
Necessary storage supports site security and remembers your choices. Optional Google Analytics stays off until you allow it. You can read every story with necessary storage only. Privacy details