mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Real-World Evaluation of an AI Agent Drafting Translational Impact Summaries

arXiv 2607.16989 ↗First posted 18 Jul 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.DLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Introduction. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs must document their scholars' research impact, but assembling each scholar's record by hand takes staff an estimated 15 hours and does not scale to a full cohort. An artificial intelligence (AI) agent could serve as a tool to gather scholar data across platforms and disciplines. Methods. We built a human-in-the-loop AI agent that assembles a dossier of sourced evidence for each scholar and drafts one-sentence Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact summaries for staff review. We evaluated it in the impact-reporting workflow of one CTSA hub across 10 career-development (KL2/K12) scholars. Two evaluation staff independently coded all 507 findings as accept, edit, or reject; the primary measure was the unanimous usable rate, defined as the share both accepted or edited. Results. Both reviewers accepted or edited 81.7% of the agent's findings. Reviewers each spent a median of 14 minutes per scholar, replacing an estimated 15 hours of manual assembly. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.43 on the usable-versus-reject decision). A profile discovery study found the agent's recall close to human search. The agent's impact evidence spanned all four TSBM domains, and about a third of the reviewed findings fell in non-scholarly categories that routine processes tend to miss. Reviewers rated synthesis accuracy 4.5 and usefulness 4.8 on a 5-point scale. Conclusions. A human-in-the-loop AI agent can serve as the first-pass author of a scholar's impact record, shifting staff from collecting and writing to reviewing, and making cohort-scale impact reporting feasible.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2026.

Builds on

5 of 27 references.

References · 5

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  3. 2024Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlightingcited by 233
  4. 2025We Should Evaluate Real-World Impactcited by 12
  5. 2022Overton -- A bibliometric database of policy document citationscited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.