EBPcharlie

Advanced clinical evidence analysis for clinicians.

EBPcharlie helps clinicians search PubMed, extract PICO structure, score trust, synthesize findings, and turn research into clearer clinical decisions.

Start clinical analysis View work

ClinicalBERT layer Real-time PICO 30+ trust signals Podcast generation PWA-ready

Working app
Evidence workflow
Clinician review required

EBPcharlie live preview

Search, Discover, History, trust score, recommendation output, podcast generation, and a cleaner route from question to evidence.

Evidence flow

QuestionPICO-ready PubMedrelevant studies Trust30+ signals Recommendationclear action

The problem

Manual evidence review is still too slow, fragmented, and hard to trust under pressure.

Clinicians still jump between PubMed tabs, abstracts, scattered quality judgments, and half-finished notes. The result is familiar: too many results, too little structure, and too much pressure on the final interpretation.

EBPcharlie compresses that workflow into a clearer path. Ask one question. Retrieve the literature. Score trust. Synthesize. Then act with more context and less friction.

It is not trying to replace evidence-based practice. It is trying to make it easier to use well.

EBPcharlie 2.0

Next generation clinical evidence analysis, without hiding the reasoning.

The newer EBPcharlie layer brings ClinicalBERT support, real-time PICO extraction, clinical scoring, advanced quality assessment, podcast output, and a PWA workflow into the same research surface.

ClinicalBERT

Advanced medical language understanding.

ClinicalBERT support helps the system interpret clinical language, population details, intervention terms, and outcome signals with more precision.

Quality

Advanced quality assessment.

Bias detection, study design classification, and methodology checks help separate stronger evidence from weaker signals.

Clinical scoring

Clinical relevance and decision support.

The scoring layer considers whether the evidence is usable for real clinical decisions, not only whether it looks strong on paper.

Accuracy

95%+ analysis accuracy target for supported flows.

The product interface presents a high accuracy target for supported clinical analysis flows. The evidence trail remains visible so users can still inspect the reasoning.

How it works

Ask, search, score, synthesize, act.

This is the core product logic: one clinical question becomes a structured evidence answer with the trust signals still visible.

Ask

Start with a clinical question.

EBPcharlie is built around what a clinician actually needs to decide. The question can then be shaped into PICO logic before the search starts.

Search PubMed with clinical intent.

The search layer is designed for clinical questions, PICO logic, publication filters, and relevance, not just broad retrieval.

Score

Score trust, quality, and relevance.

Instead of hiding behind one generic answer, EBPcharlie exposes the signals behind the result: study type, venue, methodology, sample quality, bias, and clinical relevance.

Synthesize

Turn papers into a clinical synthesis.

The output is structured as a recommendation, evidence summary, limitations view, and implementation guide, not a wall of abstracts.

Act

Act with the evidence trail visible.

The final step is not blind automation. It is a clearer recommendation with source context, scoring logic, and uncertainty still visible.

Enhanced clinical search

The search screen is built around clinical questions, not keyword guessing.

The analysis form supports a clinical question, flexible PICO requirements, ClinicalBERT analysis, publication type filters, professional background, and date ranges. The point is to make the search more clinically shaped before the evidence is scored.

Real-time PICO analysis shows completeness across population, intervention, comparison, and outcome, so the user can improve the question before relying on the result.

Flexible PICO requirements ClinicalBERT analysis Publication type filter Professional background Start and end year filters Real-time PICO completeness

Core features

A research workflow built for speed, scrutiny, and clinical use.

The point is not to flood the screen with more data. The point is to make the evidence legible enough to use and transparent enough to trust.

Clinical PubMed search.

Searches are built for clinical questions, PICO structure, publication filters, and evidence retrieval. This is the front door to the workflow.

Trust

Three layer trust scoring across 30+ signals.

Venue vetting, manuscript triage, and deeper content analysis are combined into one readable trust layer that stays auditable.

Question logic

Enhanced PICO extraction and alignment.

Population, intervention, comparison, and outcome are identified in real time so the question stays clinically meaningful.

Hierarchy

7 levels of evidence hierarchy classification.

Systematic reviews, randomized trials, cohort studies, and weaker study types are separated so the user can scan evidence quality quickly.

Synthesis

Research synthesis with clinical recommendations.

The answer is shaped around what matters in practice, not around abstract summaries alone. It stays useful without pretending certainty where there is none.

Statistics

Statistical synthesis when the question needs more depth.

Effect sizes, heterogeneity, and decision-useful signals such as NNT or NNH can be surfaced when the evidence requires a more rigorous pass.

Scoring

Clinical relevance scoring.

The system looks at real-world applicability, not only publication strength, so the output is easier to use in clinical decision-making.

Implementation

Clinical implementation guidance, not just paper summaries.

The output can separate immediate use, secondary consideration, and longer-term interpretation instead of treating every finding the same way.

Limits

Research gaps, limitations, and weak spots are shown explicitly.

EBPcharlie does not only tell you what looks strong. It also shows where evidence is thin, mixed, or not ready to support a confident move.

Verification

Reference verification with layered checks.

The verification layer reduces bad references, broken claims, and stitched-together source errors. Trust has to be earned in the open.

Audit depth

Deep article analysis for bias and methodology.

When a paper matters, the system can go beyond summary and inspect quality, bias, and methodological weak points more carefully.

Compass

Evidence compass for grade, strength, and consistency.

Instead of a closed score, the user gets a clearer sense of how strong, consistent, and clinically usable the evidence really is.

Output

PDF export and audio podcast generation.

Research output can be turned into shareable documents or podcast-style audio so clinicians and students can review findings in a different format.

App access

Installable PWA workflow.

EBPcharlie can be installed for quicker access, a cleaner research workflow, and a more focused entry point than a browser tab.

Outputs

Analysis, scoring, and audio formats in one evidence workflow.

EBPcharlie is not only a search page. It is a research workflow that can turn the same evidence base into a structured review, a recommendation, a score layer, and an audio learning format.

Synthesis

Complete clinical analysis and evidence review.

The output brings search results, trust signals, hierarchy, limitations, and clinical recommendations into one readable flow.

Podcast

Audio podcast generation.

Research findings can be converted into an audio format for review, teaching, or clinical learning without losing the evidence structure.

Voices

Multiple voice clinical discussion format.

The podcast layer is designed to feel like a professional clinical discussion, not a flat reading of a summary.

Feedback

User feedback loop.

Ratings and comments help improve search quality, trust assessments, interface clarity, and the features clinicians actually need.

Glass box transparency

The scores should be inspectable, not magical.

EBPcharlie should not hide behind a single summary score. The whole point is that users can inspect the hierarchy, the signals, and the context that shaped the recommendation.

That is the difference between a clinical evidence system and a glossy answer engine. If the trust layer cannot be audited, it should not be trusted.

This is also what separates EBPcharlie from a normal manual review and from lighter search tools. The goal is not only retrieval. The goal is structured scrutiny.

Research verification layer

Nagomi sits underneath the evidence mindset.

EBPcharlie is the product surface. Nagomi is closer to the command-line research layer: search PubMed, structure the question, verify references, inspect a paper, and export the trail.

That matters because evidence work should not only produce an answer. It should leave enough structure behind to check the answer.

View Nagomi

Example use

/nagomi:search chronic low back pain exercise
/nagomi:verify references.pdf
/nagomi:analyze 34580864

Premium depth

Built for clinicians first, but useful wherever evidence has to become action.

Clinicians

Physiotherapists, physicians, and nurses.

People who need a faster route from question to a structured evidence answer without losing the evidence trail.

Researchers

Researchers who want a faster first pass.

The system compresses retrieval, hierarchy, and trust signals so more time can go into the harder interpretive work.

Students

Students learning how evidence becomes practice.

EBPcharlie helps make evidence appraisal less abstract by showing why one source or recommendation deserves more trust than another.

Technical architecture

Clinical language, retrieval, and evidence infrastructure underneath.

Under the surface, EBPcharlie is shaped around clinical language models, PubMed retrieval, Semantic Scholar context, PICO structure, trust assessment, and a product layer that keeps the research flow usable instead of overwhelming.

ClinicalBERT integration PubMed API Semantic Scholar Tiered clinical analysis PICO framework Trust scoring layer PWA-ready product surface

Ready when you are

Start with one clinical question. Search less, score more, and keep the evidence trail.

Start clinical analysis Get in touch

Built for clinicians, researchers, and students who want a faster answer without losing the evidence trail.