AI-Powered Systematic Review Screening Platform
Start Screening Your Papers for FreeCollaborate with your colleagues, screen blind, and accelerate your systematic review, meta-analysis, and clinical evaluation reports. Free Rayyan or Covidence alternative.
Choose Your Approach
Manual, AI-Assisted, or Hybrid Screening?
Start with manual screening for full control, or let AI accelerate your process. You can always combine both approaches.
Manual
Full reviewer control with blinded screening, consensus building, and audit-ready documentation.
- Complete human oversight
- Blinded screening by default
- Multi-reviewer consensus
- Time: ~40-90 sec per abstract on average
AI-Assisted
Let AI handle initial triage while you focus on borderline cases and final decisions.
- 45x faster initial screening
- Rationale for every decision
- Human review of uncertainties
- Time: ~1-2 sec per abstract on average
Hybrid
Best of both worlds: AI efficiency with human expertise where it matters most.
- AI handles obvious cases
- Human review of edge cases
- Audit trail for all decisions
- 5x faster than manual alone
Meet Your AI Screening Assistant
Think of AI as your virtual colleague - always ready to help, never replacing your expertise
Intelligent Triage
Reviews abstracts against your inclusion criteria and provides detailed reasoning for each decision.
Virtual Colleague
Works alongside your team, handling routine decisions while flagging complex cases for human review.
Transparent Process
Every AI decision includes rationale, confidence scores, and relevant text excerpts for verification.
Speed & Consistency
Process hundreds of abstracts in minutes while maintaining consistent evaluation criteria across all studies.
Human Oversight
All borderline cases go to an uncertainty queue. You maintain full control and can override any decision.
Audit Ready
Complete decision trail with timestamps, reasoning, and reviewer confirmations for regulatory compliance.
Important Considerations
- •AI screening is designed to assist, not replace, human judgment
- •All AI decisions should be reviewed, especially for systematic reviews requiring high sensitivity
- •The system is trained on published research but may not capture all domain-specific nuances
- •For tips and tricks on how to optimize your screening, check out our documentation
Robust Guardrails & Human Oversight
AI accelerates your screening, but human expertise ensures accuracy. Our multi-layered approach catches edge cases and maintains quality.
Conservative Thresholds
The AI is conservative in its screening decisions, leading more often to a human review. This means you can be confident that it's not missing any important studies.
Uncertainty Queue
Borderline cases (typically 10-20% of studies) are automatically flagged for human attention.
Human Override
Reviewers can accept, reject, or modify any AI decision with full audit trail documentation.
Transparent Rationale
Every AI decision includes specific reasoning, relevant text excerpts, and confidence scores.
High Confidence
Auto-include/exclude with AI rationale
Medium Confidence
Send to uncertainty queue for review
Low Confidence
Automatic human review required
Override Capabilities
- •Change any AI decision with one click
- •Add custom notes and reasoning
- •Bulk actions for similar studies
- •Review and modify AI criteria interpretation
Audit Trail
- •Complete decision history with timestamps
- •Reviewer identity for all changes
- •AI rationale and confidence scores
- •Export audit logs for compliance
See the safeguards in action
Complete Transparency in Every Export
Download your screening results with full AI rationale, confidence scores, and audit trails. Perfect for systematic review protocols and peer review.
Sample Excel Export
Real screening results showing AI decisions, rationale, and human oversight
| Study ID | Title | Decision | AI Rationale | Confidence | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMID_12345 | Effectiveness of intervention X in population Y... | Include | RCT design, target population matches criteria... | 94% | AI + Human |
| PMID_67890 | Observational study of intervention Z effects... | Exclude | Wrong study design - observational not RCT | 87% | AI Only |
| PMID_11111 | Mixed methods study examining intervention... | Include | Uncertain - flagged for human review | 62% | Human Override |
| PMID_24681 | Systematic review: Treatment outcomes in pediatric patients... | Include | Systematic review, relevant population and outcomes | 91% | AI Only |
| PMID_13579 | Case report: Rare adverse event following treatment... | Exclude | Case report - not meeting inclusion criteria for study design | 96% | AI Only |
| PMID_97531 | Pilot study of novel therapeutic approach... | Maybe | Small pilot study - requires human assessment | 45% | Pending Review |
| PMID_86420 | Multicenter trial comparing treatment protocols... | Include | Large multicenter trial, high methodological quality | 98% | AI Only |
| PMID_75319 | Animal model study of pharmacokinetics... | Exclude | Animal study - not human participants | 99% | AI Only |
Common Questions About AI-Assisted Screening
Get answers to the most common questions about reliability, security, and best practices.
Important Note on AI Reliability
While our AI is highly accurate and validated on multiple datasets, it should be used as a powerful assistant rather than a replacement for human expertise. We recommend always reviewing uncertain cases and validating a sample of AI decisions, especially for high-stakes systematic reviews intended for publication or clinical guidelines.
Ready to start screening?
Join researchers worldwide who are streamlining their systematic reviews. Start with our free forever plan and upgrade when you need AI superpowers.