All such custom sites are increasingly unnecessary since modern thinking AIs like ChatGPT 5.2 Extended and Gemini 3 Pro do an incredible job surfacing good papers. In my experience, the benefit comes from using multiple AIs because they all have blind spots, and none is pareto optimal.
As a patient, sometimes I don't want the AI to have my entire medical history, as this lets me consider things from different angles. For each chat, I give it the reconstructed history that I think is sufficient. I want it to be an explorer more than a doctor.
That is a fair critique. The frontier models are getting incredible at general reasoning.
The gap Evidex fills isn't 'Intelligence'. It is Provenance and Liability.
Strict Sourcing: Even advanced models can hallucinate a plausible-sounding study. Evidex constrains the model to answer only using the abstracts returned by the API. This reduces the risk of a 'creative' citation.
Explorer vs. Operator: You mentioned using AI as an 'explorer' (Patient use case). Doctors are usually 'operators'. They need to find the specific dosage or guideline quickly to close a chart.
I view this less as replacing Gemini/GPT. It is more of a 'Safety Wrapper' around them for a high-stakes environment.
The problem is that doctors almost always, except perhaps in the emergency department, are currently too full of themselves, and are not open to reading relevant research unless a patient like me forces it upon the doctor. Maybe they are busy but that doesn't work for the patient. Even upon such forcing of the patient sharing research, the doctor will often read only a single line from an entire paper. How do you change this culture? It doesn't serve the patient too well to get an inaccurate root cause diagnosis from the doctors as I often do. It comes upon the patient to really spend the time investigating and testing hypotheses and theories, failing which the root causes go ignored, and one ends up taking too many unnecessary or even harmful pharmaceuticals.
I hear that frustration. The reality is that the 15-minute visit model leaves zero time for 'deep dives', which leads to the friction you described.
My hope is that by reducing the time it takes to verify a paper from 20 minutes to 30 seconds, we can make it easier for providers to actually engage with the research a patient brings in. It helps prevent them from dismissing it just because they 'don't have time to read it'.
If possible, it eventually needs to become integrated into the clinician's existing workflow, to become a core part of it. As it stands, medical practice is in the dark ages by ignoring much of research in clinical practice.
100%. The 'Alt-Tab' tax is the biggest barrier to adoption. Starting as a 'second screen' is just step one; deep integration into the workflow is the eventual north star.
As a patient, sometimes I don't want the AI to have my entire medical history, as this lets me consider things from different angles. For each chat, I give it the reconstructed history that I think is sufficient. I want it to be an explorer more than a doctor.