Every causation claim, anchored to literature, kept separate from the facts. BETA
Link causation statements in a drafted opinion to matched peer-reviewed literature, displayed apart from the record's own facts so the two are never blurred.
Causation statements linked to matched literature.
Each causation statement in a drafted opinion is scanned and matched against relevant peer-reviewed literature, so the examiner can see what published research says about a mechanism before finalizing the language.
Displayed apart from the record's own facts.
Literature appears in its own panel, visually and structurally separate from the case record's citations, so a reader can never confuse a published study for a fact documented in this patient's file.
The conclusion stays the examiner's, the support is just visible.
Matched literature is support material the examiner can cite or set aside. It doesn't draft the causation conclusion itself; it gives the examiner a documented, checkable body of reference alongside their own reasoning.
Reference material, never mistaken for the record.
The Causation Literature Anchor treats matched literature strictly as reference material. It is never presented as part of the case record, and it never replaces the record's own citations to this patient's file.
The causation conclusion stays the examiner's. Literature is offered alongside the opinion as something to cite or set aside, not as the source of the conclusion itself.
From a drafted opinion to anchored support.
Three steps, the two sources never merge.
Each causation statement in the drafted opinion is identified for matching.
Relevant peer-reviewed sources are retrieved and linked to the matching statement.
Literature appears apart from the record's own facts, citation-only, the conclusion untouched.
Built for anyone who has to defend a causation opinion.
Support for the opinion, clearly labeled as such.
Examiners see literature support without it ever reading as part of the record.
For IME orgsCausation opinions arrive with a documented, checkable literature trail.
For law firmsEasier to review whether a causation opinion has literature support behind it.
For carriersFrequently asked questions.
It links causation statements in a drafted opinion to matched peer-reviewed literature, and displays that literature apart from the record's own facts.
No. Literature is reference material shown in its own clearly labeled panel; it's never presented as part of this patient's record.
Yes, in beta. The Causation Literature Anchor is live and testable now; we're refining it hands-on with early customers, and if your use case is a good fit we'll work with you directly.
No. It surfaces matched literature as support material. The causation conclusion stays the examiner's own reasoning and language.
Peer-reviewed literature relevant to the causation mechanism described in the draft opinion.
Related to Causation Literature Anchor.
Matches peer-reviewed literature and standard-of-care guidelines to the record's diagnoses, cited.
Read moreReviews a drafted opinion for unsupported jumps, missing exam findings, thin causation, and overreach, the same scrutiny a deposing attorney would apply.
Read moreMaps the causal chain from injury event through symptoms, imaging, treatment, priors, and alternative causes, cited at every link.
Read moreAnchor the causation opinion, without blurring the record.
Join the beta and match literature to an opinion of your own, or book a demo to see the two panels side by side. Handled under our BAA; never used to train a model.