# Symptom Validity Record Review > Record review for symptom validity questions: self-report set against the documented record, inconsistencies surfaced with the page behind each one. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/malingering-symptom-validity-review/ --- New — **Missing Records Detection:** flags every visit, provider, and date missing from the file. [See how →](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) › — Symptom Validity Review SYMPTOM VALIDITY RECORD REVIEW ## Symptom validity is a record question before it is a test score. Symptom validity record review services set reported symptoms against what the file documents: activity noted in treatment records, medication adherence, work and school entries, and prior presentations, with every inconsistency cited to its page. The validity judgment belongs to the examining clinician. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=malingering-symptom-validity-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Symptom validity record digest · Case #IME-4812 documented Adams, Timothy · claimant record 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### The criteria are published. The opposing expert applies them to your report. We do not build for a case type until we can name the standard that defines a correct output and the person who grades the file against it. In symptom validity assessment, both are already published. The standard and the referee The rulebook - The Slick, Sherman and Iverson criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction, whose behavioural criteria turn on discrepancies between self-report and documented history - The AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias and malingering, which treats collateral records as a required data source - The manuals for the validity measures in use, including the TOMM, the MSVT and the MMPI-3 validity scales, which are interpreted alongside the record rather than in place of it - Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as amended in December 2023, under which an opinion has to reflect a reliable application of the method to the facts of the case The referee - The opposing expert, who reads the same chart for the entries a validity opinion failed to address - The trial court at a Rule 702 hearing, on whether the method was applied to the actual record - The claims examiner or IME physician relying on the finding in a benefits decision A validity opinion rested on a test score with no collateral record behind it From 10¢ to as low as 5¢/page here, duplicates free Symptom validity record digest · Case #IME-4812 cited 100% Packet — 342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicated — logged Reported versus documented — Self-report set against record entries — cited Activity and function entries — What treatment notes record the person doing — cited Inconsistencies — Date, source, and the entry that conflicts — flagged Digest delivered · cited 100% · no validity determination How it works ### 3 steps between the record and the validity judgment. 01 #### Send the record and the claimed history Treating records, prior evaluations, pharmacy history, employment and school records, and the self-reported history as given, in any format. 02 #### Get the digest back, both columns cited Reported symptoms and onset set against what the record documents on the same dates, with each inconsistency carried as its own row and linked to both pages. 03 #### The clinician judges validity Validity testing, interpretation and the opinion are the examining clinician’s. The digest is the collateral record the criteria require them to consider. The boundary, in writing ### A cited comparison, not an accusation. We surface what the record documents alongside what was reported, and cite both. We do not administer or score validity tests, conclude that anyone is malingering, or render any opinion on credibility. A discrepancy is a fact about two documents, not a finding about a person. This is deliberately not a scoring product. Every flagged inconsistency opens both source pages, because the most common explanation for a discrepancy is a transcription error or a misattributed page, and the clinician has to see it to rule it out. Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable 08:12 — Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packets — system 08:31 — 11 pages deduplicated — system 08:44 — p.140 flagged — wrong patient — system 08:54 — Symptom validity record digest complete · digest delivered · cited 100% — system 09:20 — Symptom validity record digest reviewed · citations verified — reviewer 09:26 — Symptom validity record digest exported · report section assembled by the clinician — reviewer Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery Why Medrecords AI ### The rules the platform never breaks. EVERY LINE CITED CASE #IME-4812 · ADAMS, T. 342 pp 2/14 — ER visit, right knee p.4 4/18 — arthroscopic surgery p.61 p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Medrecords AI Read every page · cite every line #### HIPAA, under a signed BAA Every file is handled under our Business Associate Agreement, from the first byte. #### Never trains a model Your records are never used to train any AI model — ours or anyone else's. #### Every line cited If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every sentence links to its source page. #### Deleted after delivery Files are deleted 30 days after delivery, with a full audit log of every access. Powered by the platform ### 7 capabilities behind every symptom validity record digest. The symptom validity digest is one deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Medical Records OCR Every page is read, including the routine primary care notes where documented activity usually appears. IN ACTION · 1,100 pp / 8 providers, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology Reported course and documented course sit on the same timeline, so a divergence is visible by date. IN ACTION · reported → documented, one timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations Every inconsistency links to both pages, so an opposing expert cannot attribute it to a reading error. IN ACTION · digest → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports It exports into the clinician’s report structure or the IME record-review section. IN ACTION · digest → report section ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) [ #### Medical Record Deduplication Forty charts pulled from multiple practices and EHR migrations carry their share of duplicate visit notes. Each is matched and collapsed to one canonical record, so the prescribing pattern is read once per real encounter. IN ACTION · 40 charts → duplicate visit notes collapsed to 1 record each ](https://medrecords.ai/product/medical-record-deduplication/) [ #### Missing Records Identification A prescribing pattern read across 40 charts is only as sound as the file behind it. When a chart references a visit, refill, or referral that never made it into the production, the gap is flagged before the pattern goes to the board. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern cross-checked → gaps flagged before submission ](https://medrecords.ai/product/missing-records-identification/) [ #### Cross-Exam Simulator (beta) A board investigator or defense counsel builds a case from the chart abstraction. This beta tool maps the questioning a physician facing that hearing is likely to face on the gaps and pattern in their own record. A rehearsal tool, not legal advice. IN ACTION · prescribing pattern → likely hearing questions mapped (beta) ](https://medrecords.ai/product/cross-exam-simulator/) FAQ ### Symptom validity review, answered. No, and it is built so it cannot. Malingering is a clinical determination requiring examination, testing and judgment. We surface documented inconsistencies with both source pages and stop there. Because the published criteria require both. The Slick behavioural criteria turn on discrepancies with documented history, and the AACN statement treats collateral records as a required data source, not an optional one. Yes, and it is often more useful there. Most flagged discrepancies resolve once both pages are read, and resolving them before deposition is worth more than discovering them during it. No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or facilities. You bring the records you already have — review starts in minutes from upload. Retrieval vendors take days; you can keep yours and still cut the review to minutes. ### Send one file. We'll tell you what we can read. No obligation. If the case type is buildable we'll scope it; if it isn't, we'll say so. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=malingering-symptom-validity-review) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/)