Evidence-Verified Medical Research

Your manuscript, stress-tested like a hostile reviewer would.

Manuscript editing, hostile-review simulation, statistical analysis and systematic reviews for medical researchers.

Every deliverable ships with a verifiable audit trail — no black boxes, no unverified claims. Receipts on every page, not promises.

Get a free scoping call →
0fabricated citations, ever
100%deliverables with audit trails
2×hostile-review passes before submission

🛡️ Every deliverable ships with proof

✓ Primary-source URLs on every claim
✓ Confidence tags (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
✓ Exclusion logs with reasons
✓ Reproducible R code + figures
△ Residual assumptions flagged, never hidden
✓ NO-ASSUMPTIONS discipline ✓ EQUATOR-compliant (PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE) ✓ ICC(2,1) inter-observer reliability ✓ 24h first response
Services

Four productized research services

Fixed scope. Fixed price. Every tier ships with evidence — see the Verification section below.

📚

Literature Brief

PICO-framed, guideline-hierarchy evidence synthesis for a clinical question. Primary sources, cited.
  • Guideline hierarchy (consensus → RCT)
  • Primary-source URLs + confidence tags
  • Risk-stratification table
$149/ brief · 3–5 days
Start a brief
🛡️

Hostile-Review Pass

A 4-phase stress test before real reviewers see your work: methodology, statistics, evidence, writing.
  • Priority issue list (fatal/major/minor)
  • Response-to-reviewers table
  • Second-pass verification
$499/ manuscript · 7 days
Stress-test my paper
📊

Statistical Analysis

ICC(2,1) reliability, meta-analysis statistics, effect sizes — with reproducible R code.
  • ICC / kappa / descriptives
  • Reproducible R scripts shipped
  • Interpretation write-up
$499/ analysis · 5 days
Get my stats done
Premium
🔬

Systematic Review / Meta-Analysis

Search strategy → PRISMA flow → forest/funnel/AMSTAR-2/GRADE figures → manuscript-ready.
  • Full PRISMA 2020 flow
  • metafor forest + funnel plots
  • R code + figures included
$2,500/ SR or MA · 4–6 weeks
Plan my review →
The Veritas Difference

Verification is the product

The #1 fear in AI-assisted research is fabrication. We answer it with receipts — the same audit trails our own studies carry.

🩻 Cohort screening — zero-miss audit trail

Every eligibility screen ships an exclusion log with reasons, plus automated checks for the classic classifier bugs.

✓ Duplicate-ID check: 1 hit → resolved
✓ Typo-variant scan (RIGIDY/RIGDI): 0 misses
✓ Contralateral-side scan: 0 false exclusions
△ Loose-family overmatch: 1 row → manual review
✓ Cohort locked: 30 feet / 28 patients

📝 Hostile review — response table

Reviewer comments answered one-by-one, with the exact revision location. Nothing waved away.

#1 "Medical heterogeneity unaddressed" → acknowledged; stratified analysis added (§3.2)
#2 "Attrition not disclosed" → added to abstract (§Abstract)
#3 "Complication reporting gap" → new table (§4.4)
△ [AUTHORS] flag: team task, not AI-fixable — stated honestly

📊 Statistics — reproducible code

ICC(2,1) two-way random, absolute agreement, single measures — with the exact R script that produced it.

icc(m, model="twoway", type="agreement",
  unit="single") # ICC 0.970, 95% CI 0.811–0.996
✓ Mean-of-observers master table
✓ Calibration sensitivity shown (0.252 vs 0.300 mm/px)
Proof of Work

Case studies — real deliverables

Anonymized examples of the exact artifacts you'll receive.

Case report · Orbit

Dacryolith manuscript — hostile-review pass

Full colour-coded revision (yellow = add, red-strike = delete, blue = author notes) plus a point-by-point response table that survived resubmission.

Deliverables: revised DOCX + PDF · response table · highlight diff
Cohort study · Hallux Rigidus DOO

Hallux cohort — zero-error audit trail

2,988-row registry → 30 feet / 28 patients locked with documented exclusions and 5 classifier bugs caught in-loop — the audit trail is the deliverable.

Deliverables: cohort CSV · PRISMA-style cascade · audit report
Clinical question · Orthopaedics

DVT prophylaxis — literature brief

Guideline hierarchy (ICM-VTE → national → trials) synthesised into a risk-stratified protocol table with Asian-population nuance flagged.

Deliverables: structured brief · risk table · primary-source citations
FAQ

Questions researchers ask

Is this AI-generated work? How do I know it's trustworthy?
We use AI as the engine, but every deliverable is verified against primary sources and ships with an audit trail you can inspect: citation URLs, confidence tags, exclusion logs, and the exact code that produced your statistics. If we cannot verify a claim, it is flagged — never silently asserted.
Do you write the manuscript or edit mine?
Both. Tier 1–2 are editing/review of your existing manuscript. The SR/MA tier includes full drafting from your research question. You always retain authorship and full control.
What does the audit trail look like?
A structured appendix: every literature claim carries its primary-source URL and a confidence tag (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW); every cohort screen carries an exclusion log with reasons; every statistic carries the reproducible R code. See the Verification section above for real examples.
How fast is the first response?
Within 24 hours, with a scoping summary and a fixed quote. No hourly billing surprises — the price you see is the price you pay.
Do you guarantee acceptance?
No — and any service that does is lying. We guarantee a submission-ready manuscript that survives our own two-pass hostile review, and we'll iterate on reviewer feedback. Acceptance is up to the journal and the science.

Start a project

Tell us what you're working on. We'll reply within 24 hours with a scoping summary and a fixed quote.

No spam. Your inquiry goes straight to our research team.