Priors keeps a public, living evidence review of your field. Each week a four-reviewer AI panel scrutinises every new paper against the primary literature and grades the certainty, so you know what's moving the evidence and what you can skip.
Every new paper is scrutinised against the live literature by a four-reviewer panel. Continuously updated, fully cited, and built to withstand scrutiny.
Priors breaks your field into falsifiable claims, ordered from most established to most contested.
Every relevant trial and paper from the live literature, gathered behind each claim.
Each claim debated and graded for certainty, framed on PICO. The score is the current prior.
Re-scored weekly, with a feed of exactly which priors moved and why.
For every prior that moved, you get why it moved and the papers driving it. The ones that change nothing, you can skip with confidence.
Reduce alcohol consumption or improve alcohol use disorder outcomes.
Why it movedA 500-patient randomised trial reported significantly fewer heavy-drinking days, the first adequately powered RCT in this indication, and the reason the prior rose three points.
17 other papers mentioned this claim and changed nothing. The panel read them so you don't have to.
Every panel includes a dedicated sceptic whose only job is to attack the finding. For the claims that matter, you get the single strongest objection, and the evidence that cuts against it.
Achieves about 15% body weight loss in obesity.
The sceptic's challengeThe pivotal trial was open-label with a partly subjective co-primary endpoint, which invites expectation bias, and its 68-week window can't speak to weight regain after discontinuation, the question most likely to matter in practice. Blinded maintenance data would resolve it.
The panel weighs this against the claim before scoring, which is why "Established" here means the effect itself, not its durability after stopping.
Every paper in a claim's corpus is classified supporting, neutral, or challenging, and opens to the trial behind it. Nothing is asserted without a source you can read.
A panel of four reviewers appraises the primary literature behind each claim, using GRADE for certainty and PICO to keep each claim precise. The score you read is their synthesis, with the corpus, the reasoning, and the uncertainty shown behind every judgment.
Priors is a sceptical first reader, not a replacement for peer review, and not medical advice. When the evidence is thin, Priors says so. That is the point.
Priors was built by a small group of researchers frustrated with the same thing you are: too many papers, no way to filter the noise, and the ones that matter slipping past. AI has mostly made that worse. We wanted to make it help instead, to do the reading that keeps you current, without burying you.
Each week around 35,000 papers are published in medicine alone, and the vast majority don't change the field. Priors is a way for researchers to see how each new paper affects the standing evidence in their field, so we can move faster towards the highest-quality science, and accelerate discovery.
Working researchers, clinicians, and anyone who needs to know where the evidence stands in a field without reading every paper that comes out. You pick your topics; Priors keeps the review current.
Finding papers was never the hard part. Search already does that, and a chatbot will happily summarise one for you. The problem is knowing which papers actually change what the field knows, and by how much. Priors doesn't just retrieve or summarise; it tracks the key claims in your field, weighs each new paper against the existing evidence, and tells you whether the standing moved. It's a measure of where the evidence stands, not a list of links.
The primary literature: randomised trials, cohorts, and meta-analyses from the indexed biomedical record. Every claim is backed by a traceable corpus of primary papers, each classified as supporting, neutral, or challenging, with the source shown behind every judgment.
Yes. The four-reviewer review protocol was validated and tested against more than 400 Cochrane systematic reviews, the gold standard for evidence synthesis. Against them it delivered roughly twice the GRADE accuracy of a standard LLM, and 85% less overconfidence.
Fabricated papers and invented DOIs are a well-known failure of standard LLMs. Priors has specific guardrails built to avoid them: every model review is anchored to the real literature, so each score is built from papers that actually exist, traceable back to their source.
Priors applies a systematic, standardised protocol to the key claims in a field, but it is not a replacement for the definitive systematic reviews produced by bodies like Cochrane or the IPCC. Our protocol is built for scale, not depth. Think of it as a reliable first pass that keeps you current and gives you a foundation to build on, not the final word, and not a substitute for the comprehensive review you'd write yourself. We don't cover every claim in a field, but subscribers can request coverage of ones we're missing.