ChatGPT guesses.
Intelectra reads the paper.
The biomedical AI workspace built on verifiable evidence, not autocomplete. Five specialist agents that search PubMed, read the full text, and quote the source, never invented.
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) carries a high risk of progression. In the DAPA-HF trial, we evaluated whether sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition with dapagliflozin would reduce that risk, regardless of diabetes status. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. These benefits were consistent across prespecified subgroups and emerged early in follow-up.
Three things generalist AI gets wrong, every time.
Three failure modes show up in every research workflow built on a generalist chatbot. Intelectra answers each one structurally, not as a feature flag.
Generalist AI invents the citations.
Ask ChatGPT for a reference and it will write you a PMID that doesn't exist, an author who never co-published, a journal volume that was never printed. The model isn't lying; it's autocompleting. Intelectra refuses to emit a quote unless it matches a verbatim region of a real paper.
Chatbots only read the abstract. We read the paper.
A 250-word abstract isn't the evidence. The Methods section is. The results table is. The footnote where the trial reports a 4-week follow-up window is. Intelectra retrieves the full text and quotes verbatim from the actual page, not from a summary an indexer wrote.
Your manuscript shouldn't train someone else's model.
Pasting unpublished work into a hosted chat sends your draft, your figures, and your hypotheses to a third-party provider that may train on it, log it, or subpoena it. Intelectra runs in three modes: open, hybrid, or fully self-hosted. You decide where your evidence lives.
Understand. Search. Retrieve. Verify. Cite.
Five named stages. The same pipeline that powers every demo on the public sandbox runs inside the desktop workspace, on your corpus, with your own boundary line drawn around it.
Understand
We decompose your question, paragraph, or hypothesis into atomic claims a paper can actually answer.
Search
We query PubMed with MeSH expansion and walk the citation graph two hops out: references and cited-by.
Retrieve
Hybrid retrieval combines exact term matching with biomedical semantic embeddings, then re-ranks the top candidates.
Verify
Every quote is checked against the source paper, verbatim or semantically. Anything that doesn't survive verification is dropped before you ever see it.
Cite
The answer is assembled from verified quotes only: Vancouver-style citations, no claim without a source.
Five live demos. No signup. No mocks.
Each demo runs the same retrieval and verification pipeline against PubMed. Click a card to run it in your browser.
Paragraph Grounder
Paste a paragraph from your draft. We find the source for every claim, or tell you which ones have none.
Novelty Checker
Submit a hypothesis. We tell you who's already tested it, who's tested something close, and where the open gap actually is.
Related Work Drafter
Give seed papers and a topic. We expand the citation graph and draft a related-work section with inline citations.
Reviewer Simulator
Paste your Methods. We critique it like a peer reviewer would, with every critique anchored to how a comparable paper handled the same issue.
Counter-Evidence Finder
Submit a claim. We hunt for papers that contradict it, not just the ones that confirm it, with verbatim quotes and the limitations to address.
Five specialists. One workspace.
The desktop workspace ships with five specialist agents that collaborate with you on the two jobs every biomedical researcher hates doing manually: building a bibliography, and writing a review of the literature.
Literature Reviewer
Builds a thematic review from seed papers: chains citations, indexes the full text, verifies every quote, clusters by theme, and drafts the document.
Research Bibliographer
Turns your draft abstract into a funnel-structured bibliography (big picture → known science → the gap you're filling), with a verified quote for every slot.
Cross-Validator
Locates every paper that supports, partially supports, or contradicts a given claim, across different methods, cohorts, and decades. Flags disagreement.
Literature Monitor
Subscribes to PubMed for the MeSH terms that matter to your project. New paper, scored alert. A daily digest, not a flood.
Research Assistant
The everyday assistant. Ask anything biomedical; get a grounded answer with verbatim quotes from your indexed corpus and from PubMed.
Three modes. You draw the boundary line.
Intelectra runs in three deployment modes. The retrieval and verification pipeline is identical across all three. What changes is where the LLM runs, and where the services that orchestrate it live. Same product, three privacy postures.
Where we win, and against whom.
Generalist chatbots and biomedical search tools, side by side. Categories we built the product around, categories we still treat as table-stakes. The columns aren't a leaderboard; they're a clarity exercise.
| Intelectra | ChatGPT | Gemini | Perplexity | Elicit | OpenEvidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Refuses to invent citations | — | — | ◐ | |||
| Reads the full paper, not just the abstract | — | ◐ | — | |||
| Native PubMed + MeSH retrieval | — | — | — | ◐ | ||
| Citation chaining (references + cited-by) | — | — | — | ◐ | — | |
| Verbatim quote verification | — | — | — | ◐ | ◐ | |
| Bibliography as persistent state | — | — | — | ◐ | — | |
| Cross-paper claim triangulation | — | ◐ | — | ◐ | ◐ | |
| Self-hostable for unpublished work | — | — | — | — | — |
Stop trusting AI that bluffs. Cite from the paper.
Run a real example on the public sandbox, or claim a spot on the desktop build. Researchers like you are already shaping what ships first.