Evidence explorer

Every claim we hold, and how far we can stand behind it.

142 claims across 39 products. 30% are confirmed against the source text by the evidence gate; 39% come from a class with no vendor interest. Everything below is browsable, filterable, and available as JSON.

What this corpus is made of

Evidence class	Claims	Confirmed	What it can support
Peer-reviewed study	19	5	Independent review before publication. The only class that survives a sceptical committee unaided.
Regulatory filing	4	0	A statement made to a regulator, where being wrong has consequences.
Independent report	32	9	Analysis by someone with no stake in the sale.
Customer case	4	3	A real deployment, but selected and framed by someone with an interest.
Press release	63	23	The vendor's own announcement. Useful for dates and facts, not for outcomes.
Vendor page	20	2	Marketing copy. Establishes what is claimed, never that it is true.

Showing 2 of 2 matching claims (142 in the full corpus) · 50% of this selection is confirmed · clear filters

NEJM AI randomized trial (Dec 2025): among 238 outpatient physicians across 14 specialties (Nov 4, 2024-Jan 3, 2025) randomized to Microsoft Dragon Ambient eXperience (DAX) Copilot, Nabla, or usual care, DAX was used in 33.5% of 24,696 visits; DAX users showed no significant change in time-in-note (-1.7%; 95% CI -9.4% to +5.9%; P=0.66) but significant improvements in burnout measures (Mini-Z +2.83; PTL -39.9) versus control.
DAX CopilotPeer-reviewed studyConfirmed2025-12-01Open source ↗
Provenance
Claim ID
clm_dd375bd99918073f92db
Version
1
Workflow
Ambient Clinical Documentation
Dimension
evidence strength
Retrieved
2026-08-27
Reviewer
healthit-gate-v1
Source URL
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12768499/
Blinded PDQI-9 evaluation (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2025) of 97 clinical encounters across five specialties compared LLM-generated ambient notes from Suki's production system against physician-authored Gold notes: overall quality scores were comparable (4.20/5 ambient vs 4.25/5 gold, p = 0.04), ambient notes scored higher on thoroughness (4.22 vs 3.80, p < 0.001) and organization (p = 0.03), and reviewers overall preferred ambient notes 47% vs 39%, though hallucinations were detected in 31% of ambient vs 20% of gold notes (p = 0.01).
Suki AssistantPeer-reviewed studyUnverified2025-10-22Open source ↗
Provenance
Claim ID
clm_93f1e478d301f2abd57c
Version
1
Workflow
Ambient Clinical Documentation
Dimension
evidence strength
Retrieved
2026-08-27
Reviewer
healthit-gate-v1
Source URL
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12586549/

Know a source we are missing?