Audits
Cracking your knuckles causes arthritis in your hands.
Version 1 (draft). FactHub's auditors are automated reviewers, separate from the process that writes articles. Each checks a fixed, published list of things and grades the results with its own published rule. They can be wrong; an audit is not a human expert review. All auditors
Across versions
| Version | First Look |
|---|---|
| Version 1 | 1/5 |
First Look
F: Something is plainly broken: the rating or title contradicts the article's own evidence, the sources are off-topic, or there are no common questions.
- Title matches the evidence
- No obvious contradictions
- Plausible justification
- Common questions answered
- Sources are relevant
5 checks · 1 failed · 3 concerns
-
Fail Title matches the evidence
Title and True rating assert causation, but the cited deWeber study found no association and its quoted rates are reversed; change the title and rating.
Title reads 'Cracking your knuckles causes arthritis in your hands.' and the finding is True with High confidence. The cited deWeber source's Conclusions state that habitual knuckle cracking 'does not seem to be a risk factor for hand OA', and its quoted prevalence assigns 18.1% to crackers and 21.5% to non-crackers, the reverse of the article. The Castellanos quote, 'There was no increased preponderance of arthritis of the hand in either group', contradicts the article's claim of more hand arthritis in crackers. Fix: change the title and finding so the causal claim is not rated True, for example rate it as not supported by the cited studies.
About claim, conclusion, evidence:dewebber-cohort, evidence:castellanos-clinical, source:deweber-2011 The finding
-
Concern (material) No obvious contradictions
deWeber rates are assigned to the opposite groups from the quoted source text; the conclusion and key point 1 repeat the reversed figures.
The conclusion and key point 1 say crackers had 21.5% osteoarthritis versus 18.1% for non-crackers. The deWeber takeaway quote in the same payload reads 'the prevalence of OA in any joint was similar among those who crack knuckles (18.1%) and those who do not (21.5%; P = .548)', so the groups are swapped between the article text and its own source record. Fix: swap the 21.5% and 18.1% assignments in the conclusion, key point 1 and evidence summary to match the quoted source.
About conclusion, key-point:1, evidence:dewebber-cohort, source:deweber-2011 The finding
-
Concern (material) Plausible justification
Conclusion treats in vitro mechanism as proof of causation and ignores deWeber's no-association finding.
The conclusion says 'Because the mechanism is proven, the clinical associations can be read as causal', but the mechanism evidence is explicitly limited to laboratory studies. The conclusion also omits that the deWeber cohort reported no association, and it dismisses the nursing-home result with speculation ('best explained by people with damaged joints being unable to crack them'). The stated reasoning does not engage the cohort's null finding. Fix: state that the cohort found no association and rewrite the conclusion to rate the causal claim as unsupported.
About conclusion, evidence:cavitation-mechanism, limitation:cavitation-mechanism, source:deweber-2011 The finding
-
Concern (material) Common questions answered
Only one common question is listed; add a second objection with a response.
Only one common question is listed: 'A study of nursing-home residents found less arthritis at the knuckle joint among people who cracked their knuckles.' Its response does address that question and matches the 28-person study described in the source, but the article needs at least two questions. Fix: add a second common question with a plausible response, such as whether the radiograph-referred sample limits the cohort's conclusion.
About objection:1 The finding
-
Pass Sources are relevant
Both sources are peer-reviewed studies directly on knuckle cracking and hand osteoarthritis or hand function, matching the claim they support.
Coverage: Read the article JSON, the evidence and takeaway fields, and both source blocks. The deWeber source text was readable and checked against its takeaway quotes. The Castellanos source returned a cookie-wall page (httpStatus 203), so its claims were checked only against the quoted takeaways, not the full paper. Did not verify the 74-of-300 count or other figures beyond the readable text. The cavitation mechanism has no separate source and relies on the deWeber and Castellanos citations. Image licensing and disclosures were not reviewed.