HealthIT.com
Menu

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

142 claims across 39 products. 28% 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.

Evidence classClaimsConfirmedWhat it can support
Peer-reviewed study195Reviewed before publication; assess study quality, funding, conflicts, and relevance to your setting.
Regulatory filing40A statement made to a regulator, where being wrong has consequences.
Independent report329Reporting outside a vendor publication; assess underlying data, sponsorship, and conflicts separately.
Customer case43A real deployment, but selected and framed by someone with an interest.
Press release6322The vendor's own announcement. Useful for dates and facts, not for outcomes.
Vendor page201Marketing copy. Establishes what is claimed, never that it is true.

Showing 7 of 7 matching claims (142 in the full corpus) · 0% of this selection is confirmed · clear filters

  1. Prospective multi-centre study (Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2026) of qXR version 3 AI-based chest X-ray screening across 3 public health facilities in Chhattisgarh, India: of 2,745 CXRs screened, 363 patients were presumptive for TB and 162 confirmed cases were found (44.63% positivity among presumptive cases), and an 80.21% increase in TB case notifications was observed during the AI-implemented period versus baseline (P < .001).

    qXR (Chest X-ray AI Suite)Peer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_326a114cde5f51400f91
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12810203/
  2. Multi-country head-to-head accuracy comparison (Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026) of 7 automated chest X-ray algorithms on 3,901 chest X-rays from India, Madagascar, the Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vietnam found qXR achieved the WHO minimum target accuracy for a tuberculosis triage test (>=90% sensitivity with >=70% specificity), with specificity of 70% or greater at 90% sensitivity.

    qXR (Chest X-ray AI Suite)Peer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_36833a1aa15ec821791a
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://doi.org/10.1093/annalsats/aaoag011
  3. Real-world performance evaluation of the Aidoc Medical Briefcase ICH Triage model across 101,944 non-contrast head CT examinations from 74,142 patients in a 17-facility academic health system (April 2023-April 2025) demonstrated 82.2% sensitivity, 97.6% specificity, and 96.6% accuracy for intracranial hemorrhage detection (npj Digital Medicine).

    Aidoc aiOSPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_c0fa19558e3ea5d6059f
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12823562/
  4. Meta-analysis of six retrospective real-world studies encompassing 9,102 CTPA scans, all assessing the Aidoc or CINA-PE FDA-approved algorithms for acute pulmonary embolism detection, found pooled sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 88%-95%) and specificity of 98% (95% CI 93%-100%) (Cureus).

    Aidoc aiOSPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_15d57030cdd4dbabf213
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12604435/
  5. CERTAIN study (European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging, 2024): in 750 consecutive patients at 5 expert CCTA sites, Cleerly AI-QCT analysis improved physicians' confidence two- to five-fold at every step of the care pathway, changed diagnosis or management in 57.1% (428) of patients (P<0.001), and reduced the need for downstream non-invasive and invasive testing by 37.1% (P<0.001) versus conventional visual CCTA interpretation.

    Cleerly Coronary AnalysisPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_a7d0185737df3457a3b3
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11139521/
  6. Lunit INSIGHT MMG (Lancet Digital Health 2020): the AI algorithm was developed and validated on 170,230 mammography examinations from five institutions; in a multicentre, observer-blinded reader study of 320 mammograms read by 14 radiologists, AI performance (AUROC 0.940) significantly exceeded radiologists without assistance (AUROC 0.810, p<0.0001), and AI assistance improved radiologists' performance to AUROC 0.881 (p<0.0001).

    Lunit INSIGHTPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_9953a345495ad65fe703
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30003-0
  7. PLATFORM trial (JACC 2015): in 584 patients with suspected coronary disease, FFRCT-guided care reduced mean total medical costs by 32% in the planned-invasive stratum versus usual care ($7,343 vs $10,734; p<0.0001) over 90-day follow-up.

    HeartFlow Analysis (FFRct)Peer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_d313d88fef3ff93bd06f
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Imaging & Diagnostic AI
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.051
Know a source we are missing?

Checking feedback availability…

Open to everyone — no account needed. This is a non-PHI service: never include patient identifiers.

We cannot action an evidence claim without something to check.

Your message is privately delivered to the editorial team. How we handle your information.