For evidence teams whose decisions face scrutiny

Run literature reviews you can defend

From protocol to appraisal, Aibstracts searches, screens, and proposes source-linked judgments, while you remain the reviewer of record.

Start free evaluation Book a workflow demo

Aibstracts runs: Protocol · Search · Screening · Appraisal · Extraction
You own: Eligibility calls · Overrides · Sign-off

app.aibstracts.com · Evidence trace

01 Study finding

“Endovascular therapy reduced major amputation at 12 months.”

3.8% vs 16.4% · HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.28–0.83)

interpreted alongside appraisal

02 Appraisal Overall: Some concerns

RoB 2 · parallel-group RCT

Reviewer verified

each answer linked to source

03 Source evidence Supports D3 · missing outcome data

“Outcome data were unavailable for 34 of 412 participants, with reasons not reported by group.”

PDF · p. 6, Results · reviewer-verifiable

Measured, not asserted 99.3% reachable-study retrieval recall

Ten published reviews, three of them Cochrane, re-run on their own search strategies. We knew the answer before we started, and every miss is named.

Interim internal benchmark v0.5. Search retrieval and title/abstract prioritization only. “Reachable” means indexed in a connected source.

Read the method, the denominators and every miss →

The problem

Most review tools speed up reading. Your team still has to defend the work

01
Summaries don’t replace appraisal.
Reading gets faster. The methodology still happens by hand.
02
Decision logs don’t make work defensible.
A click trail is not the same as a review you can stand behind.
03
Reviewer sign-off is not reviewer support.
You can override the answer. You still carry the hard reasoning yourself.

What you get

One workflow that takes a literature review from question to defensible answer

Every step is transparent, editable, and traceable, so momentum never costs you a result you can defend.

1
Define the protocol
You turn a research question into a structured, defensible protocol you can react to, instead of starting from a blank PICO template you have to populate by hand.
2
Search and screen studies
You surface the relevant studies and clear out the noise without reading thousands of abstracts yourself.
3
Appraise the evidence
You get a consistent risk-of-bias appraisal for every study, each one routed to the framework that actually fits it.
4
Trace every decision
You can show anyone why a study was included and how it was rated, so peer review and audits stop being a scramble.

See the full workflow

Where Aibstracts fits

Not a paper chatbot. Not just a review manager

Generic AI summarizes. Review managers organize. Aibstracts does the methodological work, and shows exactly how it reached every result.

Capability	Generic AI chat	Review management tools	Aibstracts
Summarizes papers	Yes	Limited	Yes
Supports the review workflow	No	Yes	Yes
Routes studies by design	No	Limited	Yes
Supports critical appraisal	Generic	Manual	Structured
Links judgments to PDF evidence	Weak	Limited	Yes
Audit-ready rationale	Weak	Manual	Yes
Handles overrides transparently	No	Manual	Yes

How we test ourselves

We replay published reviews and publish the misses

Ten published systematic reviews, three of them Cochrane, replayed through Aibstracts with their own search strategies and eligibility criteria. Where every included study landed, on the record. Every miss named and itemized.

Read the method →The same test, on your own review →

01 Published review

Its included studies are known in advance. They become the reference set.

replayed as written

02 Same search, same criteria

The review's own strategy and eligibility rules, with syntax translated only where a database required it and never tuned to the answer.

nothing hidden

03 Every study accounted for

High in the ranking, low, or missed. On the record either way.

Trace any claim

Every conclusion, one click from its source

Pick a synthesis claim. Aibstracts walks it back through every layer that produced it, down to the exact paper, page, and quote.

Synthesis

Conclusion

Endovascular therapy reduced major amputation at 12 months.

supported by

Extracted data

Supporting finding

3.8% vs 16.4% · HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.28–0.83)

appraised with

RoB 2

Study appraisal

Overall: low risk · Reviewer 1

included via

Screening

Inclusion rationale

Population, comparator, outcomes all matched.

scoped by

Eligibility

Protocol criterion

RCTs comparing endovascular vs. standard care in PAD.

found in

Discovery

Search run

PubMed · 1,943 records · 2024-02-01

Six layers. No reconstruction. No memory. The trail is the product.

How the system earns traceability

Reasons to believe, each one you can check yourself

None of these is a measured result, and none of them is offered as one. They are the parts of the system you can go and inspect before you decide whether the measured result is worth anything.

Coverage you can inspect
Six evidence sources and five discovery routes, with provenance and coverage limitations preserved.
Inspect search coverage and limitations →
Methods you can interrogate
PRISMA provenance, with RoB 2 and ROBINS-I workflows grounded in published guidance and decision rules.
See how judgments are produced →
Decisions you can verify
Every proposed answer links to its source passage. Reviewers can override it with rationale, with every version retained.
See the audit trail →

Who it’s for