How it works
Clinical intelligence, not another chatbot
Organized medical knowledge so physicians can reach useful, cited answers in under 30 seconds — with progressive depth when you need it.
Workflow
Three steps to a cited answer
- 01
Search published evidence
Studies with design, population, outcomes, and source links.
- 02
Read the intelligence layer
Strength, limitations, disagreement, and clinical relevance.
- 03
Check Rouzier teaching
Commentary, webinar chapters, and transcripts when available.
Three layers
Published evidence, scored and taught
Each layer adds context. Search starts with the literature, passes through structured evidence assessment, and connects to Dr. Rouzier's teaching when available.
- 15s
Bottom-line takeaway
Abstract lead + rubric signal
- 1 min
Structured summary
Design, bias, and relevance breakdown
- 5 min
Full study workspace
Comparisons, citations, and teaching links
Layer 1
Published evidence
PubMed-linked studies with original sources.
Layer 2
Evidence intelligence
Bias, disagreement, and relevance scoring.
Layer 3
Rouzier intelligence
Webinars, commentary, and clinical teaching.
Product demonstration
See the intelligence layer in action
Testosterone therapy and cardiovascular risk: advances and controversies
Contemporary synthesis does not support categorical cardiovascular harm from appropriately indicated testosterone therapy.
TRAVERSE: cardiovascular safety of testosterone in hypogonadal men
Large randomized cardiovascular-safety evidence for testosterone in a high-risk hypogonadal population.
Association of testosterone therapy with mortality, MI, and stroke in men with low testosterone
An influential observational signal that raised CV concern and later required careful methodological critique.
Evidence answer
For appropriately selected hypogonadal men, current higher-quality evidence does not support a blanket increase in major cardiovascular events from testosterone replacement. Risk still depends on indication, formulation, monitoring, and baseline cardiovascular status.
HIGH
Evidence strength
Higher-quality contemporary trials outweigh older observational signals.
Evidence rubric · vv1
Evidence assessment rubric
Every indexed study receives a structured assessment derived from PubMed metadata and the abstract. Scores are heuristic signals for triage — not clinical recommendations.
Scores on every study
Evidence strength
Composite score reflecting study design, sample size, bias risk, and clinical relevance.
0.0 – 1.0 (higher = stronger design signals)
Clinical relevance
How directly the abstract and MeSH terms point to patient-centered outcomes in hormone medicine.
0.0 – 1.0
Risk of bias
Estimated confounding, selection, and design limitations inferred from publication type and abstract language.
0.0 – 1.0 (higher = more concern)
How evidence strength is calculated
Evidence strength = (design × 0.45) + (sample × 0.20) + ((1 − bias) × 0.20) + (relevance × 0.15)
Study design
45%Classified from PubMed publication types — systematic reviews and RCTs score highest; case series and expert opinion score lowest.
Sample strength
20%Estimated from sample-size patterns in the abstract (n=, participants, patients). Unclear samples receive a neutral score.
Risk of bias
20%Inverted in the composite formula. Observational designs, retrospective language, and sponsorship signals increase bias risk.
Clinical relevance
15%Keyword and MeSH signals for outcomes physicians care about — cardiovascular events, symptoms, fracture, mortality — vs. surrogate endpoints.
Study design tiers
Progressive depth
- 01
15-second view
Bottom-line takeaway from the abstract lead sentences.
- 02
1-minute view
Abstract summary plus rubric dimension breakdown.
- 03
5-minute view
Strengths, weaknesses, and limitations with explicit metadata caveats.
Important
- Assessments are generated from PubMed metadata and abstracts only — full-text review may change interpretation.
- Heuristic scoring is not a substitute for physician judgment or Dr. Rouzier's clinical teaching.
- Draft assessments require editorial review before production publication when imported without auto-publish.
- Rouzier commentary and webinar teaching are separate layers and may agree or disagree with study conclusions.
Ready to search with confidence?
From $129/month. Cancel anytime.