Evidara · Medical & Scientific Writing · API Live, No UI Yet

Draft faster. Never invent a citation.

Medical and scientific document drafting — MSL brief supplements and congress abstracts today — grounded in the same citation registry and retrieval already running across Evidara's other chains. Every claim traces to a verified source. The drafting engine is built and has been validated end-to-end against real evidence in production; there's no product interface yet, so it's reachable only via direct API access today.

Tell us what you need → Explore free →

0 invented

Citations — every claim must resolve to a verified reference before a section is marked drafted

5 guards

Automated checks catch stray identifiers, unsourced statistics, hallucinated citations, and self-contradicting comparisons before a section is ever marked complete

2 templates

Fixed section templates for MSL brief supplements and congress abstracts — no open-ended outlining yet

API Live

Backend built and proven end-to-end in production — no product interface yet

The medical writing problem

Three drafting gaps that slow
medical and scientific writers down.

Drafting is rarely the bottleneck — verifying it is. Most of the time in medical writing goes into checking that every claim still matches its source.

01 — Citation Integrity

Every claim has to be manually checked against its source

Drafted sections cite study data, statistics, and prior findings — each one has to be manually traced back to the source literature to confirm it says what the draft claims it says. That verification pass is slow, easy to skip under deadline pressure, and the first thing that breaks when a draft is revised.

Manual, slow, easy to skip

02 — Fragmented Evidence

The literature review, the citation list, and the draft live in three separate places

The systematic review, the reference manager, and the draft document are usually separate tools with no live link between them. When the literature review is updated, the draft's claims don't automatically know a source has changed or been superseded.

Claims drift out of sync with sources

03 — Version & Comment Sprawl

Reviewer comments and redlines pile up with no structured trace

Comment reconciliation across reviewer rounds happens in email threads and tracked-changes documents, with no structured record of what changed, why, or whether a comment was actually resolved.

No structured audit trail

How it works

Drafting that reuses Evidara's existing
grounding — not a new, separate tool.

Outline Generation

Fixed templates first, not free-form generation

The first version uses a fixed section template per document type — starting with formats Evidara already produces well, like a congress abstract or an MSL brief supplement — rather than an open-ended outlining agent. Structure is known and reviewable before any drafting starts.

One document type at a time, template-driven

Section structure fixed and reviewable up front

Section Drafting, Grounded

Prose written only from evidence already retrieved and cited

A section is drafted from an evidence set that has already been retrieved and cited through Evidara's existing pipeline — the model is not permitted to draft from open-web knowledge or its own parametric memory. Every claim in the draft must carry a citation ID that already exists in Evidara's citation registry.

Drafting runs only over already-grounded evidence

No claim without an existing citation ID

Citation Verification Pass

Unverifiable claims are flagged, not rendered as fact

Before a section is marked drafted, every citation and numeric claim is checked against Evidara's reference verifier — the same check already used in Evidara's chat and systematic review chains. Anything that doesn't resolve to a verified source is flagged as unverified, never silently presented as sourced. A drafted section that compares the same drug or trial to itself — a real failure mode found in testing — is caught the same way.

Reuses the existing citation registry and reference verifier

Unresolved claims flagged, never fabricated or hidden

Self-contradicting comparisons flagged, not just missing citations

Illustrative example

What a grounded draft looks like

This is an illustrative shape of the output, not a verbatim transcript — the drafting engine itself is real and has been validated end-to-end in production against actual evidence. It shows the shape of the guarantee: every sentence in a drafted section either carries a real citation ID or is explicitly flagged as unverified.

Tell us what you'd need →

"Draft the clinical evidence summary for our MSL brief supplement on drug X, using our existing MSL Brief run's evidence."

Draft paragraph generated only from evidence already retrieved and cited in the source MSL Brief run

Every referenced finding carries a citation ID resolved against the existing registry [S1], [S2]

One statistic in the draft could not be matched to a source — flagged UNVERIFIED rather than included as fact

Draft held at "drafted" status pending human review — never auto-marked final

Medical & Scientific Writing · Illustrative example — shape of real, validated output; not a verbatim transcript · no product interface yet, API only

Get involved

Tell us what you'd need
this to do.

Medical & Scientific Writing's drafting engine is built and validated end-to-end in production, reusing the same citation registry already running in Evidara's SLR and MSL chains — not a separate product. There's no product interface yet, so it's reachable only via direct API access today. If your team drafts congress abstracts, MSL brief supplements, or literature-grounded sections and wants early access or a say in what ships next, reach out.