Back

PanVasc Research for AI assisted evidence analysis in panvascular intervention

You, L.; Guo, Y.; Wang, W.; Peng, Z.; Zhong, X.; Shen, L.; Ge, J.

2026-09-28 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.22.752857 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Panvascular intervention research requires evidence workflows that preserve source identity, outcome definitions and observation windows. We developed PanVasc Research, an executable research framework, and evaluated a fixed local Qwen3-4B model using two complementary tasks. Fifty ClinicalTrials.gov records from five vascular query strata generated 200 source-fidelity tests with intact evidence or controlled removal of the requested source, primary outcome or timeframe, plus 50 clean controls. A separate 100-statement sample from the official NLI4CT test set assessed clinical-trial entailment and evidence selection against existing expert labels. Generic and checklist prompts used identical evidence and maximum generation budgets; each output was also evaluated with an input-only deterministic contract. Registry exact accuracy was 51/200 (25.5%) with the generic prompt and 77/200 (38.5%) with the checklist; intact-case agreement was 50/50 and 48/50. The rule baseline recovered 200/200 tuples. NLI label accuracy was 48/100 (48.0%) and 50/100 (50.0%), respectively. The source contract retained 35 and 31 incorrect NLI labels in the two arms. Registry references establish fidelity to a registration snapshot, while NLI4CT concerns breast-cancer trials and does not validate vascular expertise. The framework also retains provenance-recorded literature retrieval, structured research planning and local numerical analysis. These experiments support a bounded assessment of source handling and semantic failure, rather than a new foundation model or autonomous scientific discovery. A proposed endpoint representation identifies the additional domain annotation and independent validation required for a panvascular research model.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.