Has this been validated in a setting like mine, and what happens when it is wrong?
Physicians, nurses, and clinical leads being asked to use an AI tool.
What we can answer for you
- Which claims rest on peer-reviewed studies versus vendor marketing, with the source and date on every one.
- Regulatory status where it applies — FDA clearance or authorisation, and what that does and does not cover.
- Whether the evidence comes from a care setting and specialty resembling yours.
- How old the newest independent evidence is, because a 2023 study is not a 2026 claim.
What we will not tell you
- We do not give clinical advice or tell you whether to use a tool on a patient.
- We do not rate clinical safety. We show you the evidence and its age; the judgement stays yours.
The Clinical lens — Evidence quality, real-world use, safety governance. This reorders the same dimensions every audience sees. It never creates a separate score.
- 1evidence strength35%
- 2deployment traction25%
- 3trust governance15%
- 4economic value10%
- 5interoperability10%
- 6market durability5%
3 of 39 products currently pass the documentary gate. 40 of 142 claims are source-checked. This is not an audience-specific recommendation. The gate is one global evidence test — it does not change by role, and neither does this list. What the lens above changes is which dimensions we weight when you read a record.
What a product must clear to appear here
- Every claim resolves to a live source that the gate re-fetches, with the class and date recorded.
- Median evidence age is inside the freshness bar — Current (≤45d) or Aging (46–120d). Historical evidence cannot carry a decision.
- The product maps to an evaluated buying scenario, so it has peers to be compared against.
- No critical dimension is left entirely unevidenced.
Almost all 36 exclusions are staleness, not product quality. Every excluded product keeps a full profile and states its own reason.
See all 39 products, including the excluded → · Exclusion reasons, broken down →