Start with what was observed
Research rarely begins as a perfectly formed query. HiDoctorly starts with a de-identified observation and helps turn it into a question the team can examine.
About HiDoctorly
A quieter place to think
clinically and rigorously.
HiDoctorly is private validation and research infrastructure for MBBS students, MD students, practising clinicians, clinical researchers, and teams whose most valuable thinking should not become someone else’s training data.
Why it exists
A clinical observation and a literature search usually live in different tools.
A doctor notices a pattern between cases. A researcher finds a paper that changes the framing. A team needs to decide whether an idea is feasible before it spends a year pursuing it. Search, note-taking and drafting are usually disconnected, with no reliable record of how a claim ended up in the final document.
HiDoctorly holds that whole trajectory in one private, reviewable space. It does not replace a methodologist, an ethics committee, or a clinician's judgment. It keeps the evidence trail visible so the next decision is easier to make.
What we believe
The product follows four non-negotiable principles.
Keep the source attached
A useful answer is not just plausible prose. Claims remain bound to the sources that support them, with uncertainty and gaps left visible.
Make privacy a design constraint
Owner-first isolation, a PHI gate, and controlled search egress are part of the workflow itself, not a promise added after the product is built.
Keep people in control
HiDoctorly supports learning, research, and team-level problem solving. Students and clinicians remain responsible for interpretation, decisions, and approvals.
Independent review
Primary reviewer
Dr. Manmath Lama
Primary reviewer, research workflow and evidence integrity
Dr. Lama tested HiDoctorly as a researcher, on a real question: whether WPOI IV and WPOI V carry different prognostic weight in oral squamous cell carcinoma. He then checked the other modules against papers, references and clinical questions he could verify himself.
"A useful and thoughtfully designed platform for organising the research process, particularly from question formulation through protocol development and research governance."
What he found strongest
- Thesis Kit and PICO
- "It shows the difference between answering a question and helping a researcher shape one that can actually be studied."
- Research Idea Radar
- "It went well beyond "do a retrospective study." It started to spell out how that study could be made more rigorous."
- Protocol Builder
- "The protocol it generated for the WPOI project was one of its stronger outputs."
- Integrity Passport
- "This gives you something AI-assisted research often lacks: a record of how the idea developed and what the researcher approved along the way."
- Viva Simulator
- "That shows a real progression from recognition to interpretation to clinical application to integrated risk assessment, which is far better than a generic MCQ generator."
- Similarity Pre-check
- "Known published text copied word for word was caught clearly, while original unpublished writing showed no match."
- Ongoing Trials
- "One of the more practically useful modules."
- Journal Check
- "One of the platform's more useful ideas for Indian postgraduate researchers."
"HiDoctorly is strongest as a research co-pilot, workflow organiser and academic governance layer."
Proof, not promises
We measured ourselves on a published question set.
HiDoctorly answered the 117 case-based dental questions published with a 2025 study in Frontiers in Oral Health, three separate times. The same questions were used to compare general AI tools. Here is what it scored, and how.
103 of 107 case-based dental MCQs correct
Runs scored 95.3%, 96.3% and 93.5%
Fleiss kappa. Same answer in all 3 runs on 103 of 107
Unanswered counts as wrong. Only 10 flawed items excluded, listed in advance
| Tool | Core job | Evidence grounding | Medical workflow fit | Published accuracy | Areas covered out of 41 | Verified price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HiDoctorlyThis pitch | Strong fit: Evidence-traceable research infrastructure for clinicians | Strong fit: Source-bound claims, retraction checks, Citation Truth Check, export blocks for what isn't verified | Strong fit: 4 modes · 5 signed approvals · pre-ethics review for 7 regions · guide view · exam packs | Strong fit: Highest96.3% MCQ107 dental cases, best of 3 runs (mean 95.0%, kappa 0.97) | 35 / 4185% · 33 strong | AED 18/mo≈ $4.90 · ≈ ₹472 · Free until 3 Nov 2026 |
General AI chatbot AConsumer AI, paid tier | Partial: General-purpose chatbot with cited research | Partial: Cited research + Study Mode, not a source-bound workflow | Absent or not tested: No clinical approval chain | Partial: 92.9% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026: 94 cancer-screening MCQs, 3 runs) | 9.5 / 4123% · 1 strong | $20/mo |
General AI chatbot BConsumer AI, paid tier | Partial: General-purpose chatbot with PubMed drafts | Partial: PubMed access, hand-drafted; no source-bound audit | Absent or not tested: No clinical approval chain | Partial: 92.6% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026, same 94 questions) | 9.5 / 4123% · 1 strong | $20/moor $200/yr |
Consensus ProEvidence search | Strong fit: Paper-grounded summaries with citations | Partial: Search-anchored; no journal-club chain or sign-off | Absent or not tested: Not a clinical workflow | Absent or not tested: Not in the published MCQ benchmark | 4.5 / 4111% · 2 strong | $20/moor $144/yr |
Elicit Pro / IndustryReview assistant | Strong fit: Screens ≤ 5,000 papers for systematic review | Partial: Per-paper extraction; different task, vendor-run | Absent or not tested: Review workflow only, not clinical | Partial: 95.6% extraction (vendor test, different task, not MCQ) | 5 / 4112% · 2 strong | $588/yr≈ $49/mo |
OpenEvidenceClinical Q&A | Strong fit: Clinical answers from licensed journals | Partial: US NPI-gated journal citations; no approval trail | Partial: Point-of-care only; no journal club, no research | Partial: 90.1% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026, same 94 questions) | 8.5 / 4121% · 5 strong | Freefor verified US clinicians (NPI) |
NousLabHypotheses / local AI | Partial: Hypothesis & protocol copilot | Absent or not tested: No source-bound workflow documented | Absent or not tested: No clinical workflow published | Absent or not tested: Untested in any published benchmark | 1.5 / 414% · 0 strong | n/apublic list price not found |
- HiDoctorlyThis pitchAED 18/mo≈ $4.90 · ≈ ₹472 · Free until 3 Nov 2026Strong fit:Highest96.3% MCQ107 dental cases, best of 3 runs (mean 95.0%, kappa 0.97)35 / 4185% · 33 strong
- Core job
- Strong fit:Evidence-traceable research infrastructure for clinicians
- Evidence grounding
- Strong fit:Source-bound claims, retraction checks, Citation Truth Check, export blocks for what isn't verified
- Medical workflow fit
- Strong fit:4 modes · 5 signed approvals · pre-ethics review for 7 regions · guide view · exam packs
- General AI chatbot AConsumer AI, paid tier$20/moPartial:92.9% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026: 94 cancer-screening MCQs, 3 runs)9.5 / 4123% · 1 strong
- Core job
- Partial:General-purpose chatbot with cited research
- Evidence grounding
- Partial:Cited research + Study Mode, not a source-bound workflow
- Medical workflow fit
- Absent or not tested:No clinical approval chain
- General AI chatbot BConsumer AI, paid tier$20/moor $200/yrPartial:92.6% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026, same 94 questions)9.5 / 4123% · 1 strong
- Core job
- Partial:General-purpose chatbot with PubMed drafts
- Evidence grounding
- Partial:PubMed access, hand-drafted; no source-bound audit
- Medical workflow fit
- Absent or not tested:No clinical approval chain
- Consensus ProEvidence search$20/moor $144/yrAbsent or not tested:Not in the published MCQ benchmark4.5 / 4111% · 2 strong
- Core job
- Strong fit:Paper-grounded summaries with citations
- Evidence grounding
- Partial:Search-anchored; no journal-club chain or sign-off
- Medical workflow fit
- Absent or not tested:Not a clinical workflow
- Elicit Pro / IndustryReview assistant$588/yr≈ $49/moPartial:95.6% extraction (vendor test, different task, not MCQ)5 / 4112% · 2 strong
- Core job
- Strong fit:Screens ≤ 5,000 papers for systematic review
- Evidence grounding
- Partial:Per-paper extraction; different task, vendor-run
- Medical workflow fit
- Absent or not tested:Review workflow only, not clinical
- OpenEvidenceClinical Q&AFreefor verified US clinicians (NPI)Partial:90.1% MCQ (JAMIA Open 2026, same 94 questions)8.5 / 4121% · 5 strong
- Core job
- Strong fit:Clinical answers from licensed journals
- Evidence grounding
- Partial:US NPI-gated journal citations; no approval trail
- Medical workflow fit
- Partial:Point-of-care only; no journal club, no research
- NousLabHypotheses / local AIn/apublic list price not foundAbsent or not tested:Untested in any published benchmark1.5 / 414% · 0 strong
- Core job
- Partial:Hypothesis & protocol copilot
- Evidence grounding
- Absent or not tested:No source-bound workflow documented
- Medical workflow fit
- Absent or not tested:No clinical workflow published
Area by area
41 areas a doctor or researcher needs. HiDoctorly covers 35; the next tool covers 9.5.
35 of 41, strong 1 and partial 0.5
No other tool in this table documents these at all
General AI chatbot A covers 9.5
Listed below, not hidden
| Area | HiDoctorly | Chatbot A | Chatbot B | Consensus | Elicit | OpenEvidence | NousLab |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence integrity | |||||||
| Claims bound to sourcesEvery sentence of an answer tied to the paper that supports it; unverified claims blocked from export | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Retraction check on every sourceEach paper checked against Retraction Watch and publisher notices, including duplicate DOIs A 2026 JMIR study found general and research AI tools did not reliably flag retracted papers (Labenbacher et al., doi 10.2196/88766). | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Citation Truth Check on your manuscriptDoes each cited paper actually support the sentence you cite it for, with the supporting passage quoted | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Free reference check, no accountExistence, wrong DOI and retraction for 20 references a day, no sign-up | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Sealed, publicly verifiable recordIntegrity passport and citation certificate: hash, AI-use disclosure, verify link, ORCID | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Journal check before you submitMEDLINE, PMC, DOAJ and Scopus indexing, quartile, predatory warning signs, journal fit for your topic | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Retraction Sentinel after publicationSealed reference lists re-checked for life; the certificate shows new retractions with an impact note per claim Reference managers (Zotero, EndNote) warn when you cite a retracted paper in your own library; they do not watch a published work or judge the impact on its claims. | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Numbers Check on your statisticsTest statistic vs p, 95% CI vs p, n/N (%) and GRIM, recomputed exactly, in medical reporting style A general chatbot can recompute a p-value when asked, one at a time; it does not scan a manuscript. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Protocol Fidelity CheckRegistered outcomes, start date and sample size (ClinicalTrials.gov live, CTRI pasted) compared with the manuscript A general chatbot can compare two pasted texts; it does not read the registry or check registration timing. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Raw Data Seal for images and dataFiles fingerprinted in the browser and sealed with a date; anyone can check a file against the seal | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Submission integrity report for editorsOne sealed link: references, claim support, statistics, registration, reference-list signals and an editor triage line | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Similarity pre-checkCopied sentences found against published abstracts, open-access papers and the web, read against UGC 2018 levels | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Research workflow | |||||||
| Library by topic and research typePapers grouped by what you searched and ranked by how well their design fits the type of research | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Protocol, sample size and locked analysis planProtocol builder, sample size calculator, statistical test chooser, SAP locked before data | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial |
| Pre-ethics review for your countryIEC / IRB / REC / HREC checks, consent, trial registry number (CTRI, NCT, ISRCTN, ACTRN and 9 more) | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Privacy receipt and patient-identifier blockIdentifiers checked before processing, in the browser and on the server, with a receipt of what was sent and to whom OpenEvidence offers HIPAA-compliant handling for US clinicians; it does not show a per-request receipt. | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Signed human approval at every stageFive sign-offs from observation to protocol; nothing advances without the researcher | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Guide and department viewRead-only view for the thesis guide and counts for the department, never the evidence or questions | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Thesis deadlines and exam eligibilityPGMER 2023 and NBEMS timelines, publication and course requirements, tracked in one place | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Systematic review screening and PRISMAImport, de-duplicate, blinded second reviewer, conflicts, extraction, PRISMA 2020 counts Elicit screens at larger scale (up to 5,000 papers on Pro). | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Response to reviewersReviewer comments split point by point into a response letter you complete | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Editor batch screeningJournal editors screen a batch of submissions: flag, query or clear, with a CSV | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Learning and practice | |||||||
| Exam packs with cited questionsNEET-PG, USMLE, UKMLA / PLAB, AMC and Gulf drills, each question tied to a paper, into spaced repetition | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Viva simulator marked against the literatureExaminer questions, marked answers, follow-ups | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Region-aware guidanceGuidelines, units, exams, ethics and registry for India, South Asia, UK, Europe, US, Middle East, Africa, Australia and Asia | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Point-of-care answers from licensed journalsFull text from licensed journals such as NEJM and the JAMA Network OpenEvidence licenses NEJM and JAMA content; HiDoctorly uses open-access full text only. | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested |
| CME creditsAccredited continuing medical education credit for use OpenEvidence offers AMA PRA Category 1 credit to US clinicians. | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested |
| Ambient clinical notesRecords a patient visit and drafts the clinical note OpenEvidence Visits. | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested |
| General writing and draftingFree-form drafting, editing and rewriting of any text HiDoctorly drafts within research stages; general chatbots draft anything. | Partial | Strong fit | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial |
| Agreement across studies at a glanceHow many studies say yes, no or possibly to a question Consensus Meter; HiDoctorly shows a certainty profile and evidence levels instead. | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Very large literature searchDeep search across hundreds of millions of papers Consensus searches over 200 million papers; HiDoctorly searches PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref and OpenAlex per question. | Partial | Partial | Partial | Strong fit | Strong fit | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Departments | |||||||
| Department hubs for 9 departmentsAnaesthesia, Medicine, Surgery, OBG, Paediatrics, Orthopaedics, Psychiatry, Emergency and Dentistry: 62 training pathways across India, UK, US, Australia, Europe, the Gulf, South Asia and Africa, each with research and exam rules, a dated checklist and sources General chatbots can describe a pathway from memory; they do not keep a sourced, dated checklist per department. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Training pathways for 14 anaesthesia programmesMD / DNB, FRCA, ABA, ANZCA, EDAIC, Saudi and Arab Board, FCPS (Pakistan, Bangladesh), Nepal, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Malaysia: research rule, exams, registry, ethics, checklist, sources General chatbots can describe a pathway from memory; they do not keep a sourced, dated checklist. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Thesis topic saturation checkLive count of randomised trials and reviews for "A vs B in a block or operation", with the open angles (obesity, obstetric, QoR-15, delirium, chronic pain) Consensus and Elicit return papers on a topic; they do not count trials against reviews or suggest the uncovered angle. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Baseline table check (Carlisle method)Table 1 of a randomised trial tested for baseline values too similar or too different for random allocation, as anaesthesia journals now do A chatbot with code can run the test if you write it; none offers it as a check. | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Superseded guideline flag in references43 guidelines across departments (DAS, ASA, ESC, ACC/AHA, ADA, KDIGO, GOLD, GINA, WHO PPH and dengue, WSES, ATLS, AAP, AAOS, NICE, CANMAT, AAP/EFP): a reference to an older version is flagged with the current one OpenEvidence answers from current guidelines; it does not check your reference list. | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial | Absent or not tested |
| Audit and QI cyclesDepartment standards (for example VTE, sepsis antibiotics, Robson caesarean groups, hip fracture to theatre, lithium monitoring, time to ECG, dental radiographs), audit size, re-audit with confidence intervals and change | Strong fit | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Specialty exam packs and viva47 specialty packs (FRCA, MRCP, MRCS, MRCOG, MRCPCH, FRCS Orth, MRCPsych, RCEM, MFDS, ABIM, ABS, ABOG, ABP, INBDE, RACP, ACEM, MD / MS / DNB, FCPS, Saudi Board and more) drills and oral practice, with no dose or crisis algorithm given as an answer | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested |
| Repeated-measures and ordinal sample sizePain scores over time (ANCOVA, Frison and Pocock) and ordinal outcomes such as sedation or satisfaction scales (Whitehead) | Strong fit | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Partial |
| Drug doses and crisis algorithms at the bedsidePatient-specific dosing, infusion rates and emergency algorithms HiDoctorly does not give doses or algorithms by design; OpenEvidence answers clinical dosing questions for clinicians. | Absent or not tested | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested |
| Specialty point-of-care decision supportBedside answers to treatment questions within a specialty, from licensed guideline content HiDoctorly supports training and research, not bedside treatment decisions; OpenEvidence answers clinical questions for clinicians. | Absent or not tested | Partial | Partial | Absent or not tested | Absent or not tested | Strong fit | Absent or not tested |
| Score | 35 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 4.5 | 5 | 8.5 | 1.5 |
Only in HiDoctorly
- Citation Truth Check on your manuscript. Does each cited paper actually support the sentence you cite it for, with the supporting passage quoted.
- Free reference check, no account. Existence, wrong DOI and retraction for 20 references a day, no sign-up.
- Sealed, publicly verifiable record. Integrity passport and citation certificate: hash, AI-use disclosure, verify link, ORCID.
- Journal check before you submit. MEDLINE, PMC, DOAJ and Scopus indexing, quartile, predatory warning signs, journal fit for your topic.
- Retraction Sentinel after publication. Sealed reference lists re-checked for life; the certificate shows new retractions with an impact note per claim.
- Raw Data Seal for images and data. Files fingerprinted in the browser and sealed with a date; anyone can check a file against the seal.
- Submission integrity report for editors. One sealed link: references, claim support, statistics, registration, reference-list signals and an editor triage line.
- Similarity pre-check. Copied sentences found against published abstracts, open-access papers and the web, read against UGC 2018 levels.
- Pre-ethics review for your country. IEC / IRB / REC / HREC checks, consent, trial registry number (CTRI, NCT, ISRCTN, ACTRN and 9 more).
- Signed human approval at every stage. Five sign-offs from observation to protocol; nothing advances without the researcher.
- Guide and department view. Read-only view for the thesis guide and counts for the department, never the evidence or questions.
- Thesis deadlines and exam eligibility. PGMER 2023 and NBEMS timelines, publication and course requirements, tracked in one place.
- Editor batch screening. Journal editors screen a batch of submissions: flag, query or clear, with a CSV.
- Audit and QI cycles. Department standards (for example VTE, sepsis antibiotics, Robson caesarean groups, hip fracture to theatre, lithium monitoring, time to ECG, dental radiographs), audit size, re-audit with confidence intervals and change.
Where others lead
- Point-of-care answers from licensed journals. OpenEvidence licenses NEJM and JAMA content; HiDoctorly uses open-access full text only.
- CME credits. OpenEvidence offers AMA PRA Category 1 credit to US clinicians.
- Ambient clinical notes. OpenEvidence Visits.
- General writing and drafting. HiDoctorly drafts within research stages; general chatbots draft anything.
- Agreement across studies at a glance. Consensus Meter; HiDoctorly shows a certainty profile and evidence levels instead.
- Very large literature search. Consensus searches over 200 million papers; HiDoctorly searches PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref and OpenAlex per question.
- Drug doses and crisis algorithms at the bedside. HiDoctorly does not give doses or algorithms by design; OpenEvidence answers clinical dosing questions for clinicians.
- Specialty point-of-care decision support. HiDoctorly supports training and research, not bedside treatment decisions; OpenEvidence answers clinical questions for clinicians.
Marked from each tool's public documentation, help and pricing pages as of 10 Oct 2026, and the published evaluations cited. Strong = documented and does the job; partial = general ability, a narrower version or a different task; absent = not found in public documentation. Score: strong 1, partial 0.5. Rows where another tool leads are included. Scite (not in this table) offers a paid reference check that flags retractions and shows how each reference is cited elsewhere; it does not judge whether a paper supports your sentence. Download the matrix as an image
How we tested
- Source: doi 10.3389/froh.2025.1686090, 117 questions, all dental specialties.
- 10 incomplete, ambiguous or flawed items excluded before scoring, leaving 107.
- Three independent runs in October 2026 through the same reasoning layer you use, including its separate single-best-answer decision step.
- Only technical failures were retried. An answer, once given, was never re-asked.
- 95% confidence interval for the best run: 90.8% to 98.5%.
- Confirmed on 200 separate MedMCQA dental questions (Indian PG exam style) never used for tuning: 72.0% before the decision step, 87.5% after.
What we will not overclaim
- The study did not publish its answer key. We scored against our own key, which is awaiting independent expert review.
- This is a dental MCQ benchmark, not clinical validation. HiDoctorly does not diagnose or prescribe.
- Of the four questions missed in every run, one has truncated options and another is arguably right either way.
- We will publish the reviewed figure when an independent examiner signs off, whether it goes up or down.
What that means for you
Every claim keeps its source
Answers are bound to the papers that support them, checked against retraction notices, and exports are blocked for anything that is not verified.
A record your guide can trust
Five signed approvals and an Integrity Passport show how AI was used in your thesis, with a public verification link.
Built around Indian timelines
Protocol within 180 days, thesis by month 26, journal and similarity pre-checks before you submit.
Priced for students
AED 18 (about $4.90 / ₹472) a month, free until 3 Nov 2026. General AI tools listed above start at $20 (about ₹1,930) a month.
Who it is for
Private space is not a luxury when the work is sensitive.
Whether the work is a student’s difficult concept, a resident’s research question, a clinician’s unanswered observation, or an institution’s research program, HiDoctorly keeps the owner, the evidence, and the validation trail in view.
MBBS students
Build sound foundations, compare sources, and validate your understanding privately before a viva, case discussion, or journal club.
MD students and residents
Move from clinical observations to evidence review, critical appraisal, and a feasible protocol with a traceable chain of reasoning.
Practising clinicians and teams
Validate research questions, workflow problems, and evidence privately with clear ownership, auditability, and controlled egress.
In the news · for the founders’ earlier work
The idea behind HiDoctorly, already in the headlines.
In August 2026 Satyavrat Nirala and Naveen Babu Garikapati launched HiMirrorly, a self-limiting “honest mirror” built on the HI > EI > AI idea: human judgement first, machines never making the final decision. Indian media carried it in English and Hindi. HiDoctorly, from the same creators, brings that conviction to medical evidence: you observe, the evidence is checked, and you decide.
Read all 8 headlines
- Satyavrat Nirala and Naveen Babu Garikapati launch HiMirrorly.com to redefine human–AI interactionOutlook Business · Aug 2026 · English · Press release
- Beyond chatbots: how two Indian tech innovators built an honest AI grounded in ancient philosophyThe Tribune · Aug 2026 · English · Press release
- AI: young innovators develop human-first tech, say machines will not make the final decisionAmar Ujala · 21 Aug 2026 · Hindi · Publication
- Silicon Valley’s AI stumbles on ethics as Indian duo launches HiMirrorly, a self-limiting honest mirrorLokmat Times · Aug 2026 · English · Press release
- HiMirrorly.com introduces an auditable digital mirror designed to put human intelligence above AIAhmedabad Mirror · Aug 2026 · English · Press release
- HiMirrorly debuts as a reflection platform centered on human and emotional intelligenceInsights Success · Aug 2026 · English · Press release
- Beyond chatbots: how two Indian tech innovators built an honest AI grounded in ancient philosophyANI News · 27 Aug 2026 · English · Wire syndication
- Beyond chatbots: how two Indian tech innovators built an honest AI grounded in ancient philosophyThe Daily Guardian · Aug 2026 · English · Wire syndication
Coverage is of HiMirrorly, our earlier product. Logos identify the outlets and do not imply endorsement.
A clear boundary
Useful without pretending to be the authority.
HiDoctorly does not diagnose, prescribe, dose, or issue patient-specific emergency instructions. It frames problems, retrieves evidence, compares options, and leaves the human decision-maker with a trace they can review.
© 2026 Satyavrat Nirala · HiDoctorly