MedGaugeCapabilities / A · Foundational
A.4 Multi-source cross-analysis Active
Given several tables, documents or encounters for the same case, the agent aligns them and records each cross-source relationship in a structured artifact. Graded by checkpoints, one per cross-source relationship.
Evidence: frozen. A frozen benchmark version tests this capability. No site-verified result exists yet.
- Domain
- A · Foundational
- Evidence form
- checkpoint
- Veto constraints
- —
- Depends on
- —
- Required by
- D.12D.15D.17D.18D.3D.7
- Internal task families
- care_journey
- External anchors
- HealthBench
- Version
- 0.1.0 · 0.1.0
Definition in detail
Clinical facts about one case are spread across orders, results, notes and encounters that use different identifiers and time bases. Conclusions drawn from one source alone miss conflicts that only appear when sources are aligned.
Inputs a task gives
- Several tables or documents for the same case, such as orders, results and progress notes
- Encounter lists covering more than one visit or admission
- A description of the linkage keys and time bases used by each source
Artifact required
A relation table with one row per cross-source relationship: relation_id, source_a (document and field), source_b, relation_type (agrees, conflicts, supplements, unlinked), evidence_a and evidence_b as verbatim excerpts.
How it is graded
Each relationship in the reference is one checkpoint. A checkpoint passes when the relationship appears with the correct endpoints and relation_type and its evidence excerpts exist verbatim in the inputs. A conflict asserted where the reference records agreement fails that checkpoint; relationships outside the reference earn no credit.
In scope
- Linking records across tables, documents and encounters for the same case
- Classifying each link as agreement, conflict, supplement or unlinked
- Handling differing identifiers and time bases as described in the task
Out of scope
- Ordering events in time and deciding knowability - graded under A.5
- Deciding which conflicting source is clinically correct - graded under the relevant D-domain capability
- Plan-versus-execution checks across encounters - graded under D.7
Typical failures
Expected failure patterns; not measured rates.
- Linking records on a shared name or date when the stated key does not match
- Treating a difference in units or representation as a conflict
- Stopping after the first conflict found and leaving later relationships unrecorded
Standards: std-fhir-r4
Benchmarks
- Clinical Temporal Audit Active
Grading references
No grading reference is mapped to this capability.