|
|
|
|
|
|
by adit_ya1
175 days ago
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what's the prioritization of evidence (RTC Metanalysis > RTC > observational ) etc, and what's the end user benefit over a tool like OpenEvidence? You mention that other tools are expensive, slow, or increasingly heavy with pharma ads, but OpenEvidence for now seems to be pretty similiar with offerings, speed, and responses. What's your pitch as to why one should prefer this? |
|
|
1. Prioritization: I instruct the model to prioritize evidence in this hierarchy: Meta-Analyses & Systematic Reviews > RCTs > Observational Studies > Case Reports. It explicitly deprioritizes non-human studies unless specified.
2. Why not OpenEvidence? OE is excellent! But we made two architectural choices to solve different problems:
'Long Tail' Coverage: OE relies on a pre-indexed vector store, which often creates a blind spot for niche/rare diseases where papers aren't in the 'Top 1% of Journals.' Because Evidex queries live APIs, we catch the obscure case reports that static indexes often prune out.
Workflow: OE is a 'Consultant' (Q&A). Evidex is a 'Resident' (Grunt work). The 'Case Mode' is built to take messy patient histories and draft the actual documentation (SOAP Notes/Appeals) you have to write after finding the answer.