A published review already contains its own answer sheet
Anyone can demo well on a friendly example. So we test the hard way: published reviews, replayed as written, every included study accounted for.
The method and headline results are public below. The full report contains every denominator, per-review result and named miss.
- 01 Published review
Its included studies are already known. They become the reference set.
- 02 Its own search
Search concepts and eligibility preserved. Syntax was translated only where the destination database required it, and the query was never tuned against the known included studies.
- 03 Every study lands somewhere
- High in the ranking
- Low in the ranking
- Missed
The full report shows how many landed in each group, and identifies every miss.
Reachable means indexed in a source Aibstracts searches. Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science are not connected.
Search and title/abstract prioritization only. See the complete scope and limitations below.
Ten published reviews across eight specialties, three of them Cochrane, six published in 2025 or later.
Which journals the test-set reviews came from
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · JAMA Network Open · American Journal of Psychiatry · Archives of Disease in Childhood · Nutrition Reviews · Journal of Clinical Medicine · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open. Journal names describe where the test-set reviews were published. They are not an endorsement.
Not established by this evaluation
- Reproduction of final included-study sets
- Precision and agreement, both pending human adjudication
- Run-to-run screening stability
- Full-text eligibility performance
- Performance on diagnostic, qualitative, or complex-intervention reviews
The same test, on your own review
Replay a completed review with nothing live at risk, and judge the workflow on evidence your team already knows by heart.
No fee, and no commitment. This is how we show the work, not something we sell.
Opens our scheduler. Thirty minutes with the founder, no sales qualification call first.
Three steps, one objective
- 01
Bring one completed review
Its search strategy, eligibility criteria, and included-study list, as published. Non-confidential.
- 02
We replay it, fully traced
Retrieval, ranking, and rationales against your protocol, with provenance on every record.
- 03
Read the results, miss by miss
Coverage, retention, and every individual loss, walked through together with your methodologists.
Two baselines, measured on your own review
The rows are fixed before the pilot starts. They are blank because the values come from your review, not ours.
Evidence performance
Does it find what your reviewers found?
- Retrieval coverage
- Reference-study retention
- Reading-list concentration
- Every miss, itemized
You decide Whether the screening is methodologically acceptable to you.
Operational baseline
What would it cost you in reviewer time?
- Reviewer minutes per record
- Person-hours for the priority set
- Time to surface known included studies
- Time to first full-text handoff
- Hours per protocol revision
- QA and audit-preparation effort
You decide Whether the business case holds at your volume.
Pilot measures are commitments to measure, not results. Performance figures from our own validation, and their limits, travel together in the validation summary.
Results referenced on this page and in the validation summary are interim results from an internal validation study dated 29 July 2026. They are subject to revision and not intended for citation. The study is not independent, peer-reviewed, or externally validated.