Evidensity Reports Services Contact
Research Consulting

Evidensity Research

Rigorous, source-verified research briefs in days, not months. Structured analysis of the academic literature, full source transparency, and unlimited follow-up questions.

10 academic databases Reports in 48 hours

You need evidence. Getting it takes too long.

Whether it's due diligence on a scientific claim, an evidence base for a strategy decision, or a literature review for a regulatory submission — you need answers from the research, and you need them fast.

Traditional reviews

6–18 months, $30k–$150k. Delivered long after the decision window has closed. Usually too academic to act on.

AI summaries

Fast but unverifiable. No source trail, no methodology, no way to know what was missed. Unacceptable for serious decisions.

Internal desk research

Your team spends days reading papers and produces a subjective summary. No structured extraction, no reproducibility, no confidence scoring.

A single systematic review costs an average of $141,194 and takes a mean of 67 weeks to complete.
Michelson & Reuter (2019), Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 16, 100443. Borah et al. (2017), BMJ Open, 7(2), e012545.

Structured evidence synthesis at consulting speed

I combine AI-powered analysis with expert oversight to deliver research reports that are rigorous enough to cite and fast enough to use.

Day 1
Discover
Search 10 academic databases. Build a corpus of 300–2,000 papers.
Day 1
Screen
AI-assisted relevance gating with defined inclusion criteria.
Day 1–2
Extract
Structured extraction of methods, results, claims, and metrics.
Day 2
Verify
Credibility scoring, evidence grounding against source text.
Day 2
Synthesise
Meta-analysis with disagreement detection, weighted by evidence quality.
Day 2
Report
Executive brief, detailed report, evidence table, references.

What you receive

Every engagement delivers a complete evidence package, not just a summary.

Executive Brief

1–2 pages. Numbered findings with evidence strength qualifiers. Clear bottom line. Written for people who need to act, not read.

Bottom Line Key Findings Evidence Landscape Limitations

Detailed Report

Comprehensive analysis with APA citations, verified source quotes, credibility assessments, and areas of disagreement. Self-contained HTML with citation tooltips.

Inline Source Quotes Evidence Appendix Disagreement Analysis

Structured Evidence Table

Every paper with 29 data columns: methodology, key claims, confidence scores, credibility tier, grounding coverage. CSV export for your own analysis.

CSV 29 Columns Filterable

Reference Library

Complete BibTeX and RIS reference files for all included papers. Import directly into Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote.

BibTeX RIS Full Metadata

Not just a report. An explorable evidence base.

Every engagement includes ongoing consulting support — send me follow-up questions, ask me to test assumptions, and request visualisations of how papers connect.

Ask the Corpus

Send me a question in plain English and get a sourced answer back quickly. Every response includes inline citations with verified quotes from specific papers. No waiting for a full new report — get answers as questions arise.

Fast cited responses Cited sources Confidence scoring

What-If Sensitivity

Ask me to filter by year, methodology, paper tier, or exclude individual studies — and I'll show you how the conclusions change. Answers questions like "does this finding hold if we remove the weaker studies?"

Year & method filters Side-by-side comparison Delta highlights

Evidence Map

I provide visual network diagrams showing how papers cluster around shared findings. Papers are nodes, patterns are connections, and disagreements are visible fault lines.

Visual network Pattern clusters Disagreement mapping
Traditional reviews give you a document. Evidensity gives you a living evidence base you can keep coming back to with new questions — long after the initial engagement.

How we work together

Six engagement patterns, each designed for a different stage of your decision-making process. Every engagement includes ongoing consulting support for follow-up questions and deeper exploration.

Landscape Scan

"What does the evidence look like?"
Fast scoping of the research landscape. Ideal for proposals, feasibility checks, and initial briefings.

1–2 days

Evidence Build

"Build me a structured evidence base."
Thorough extraction and full-text analysis. Produces the CSV evidence table your analysts can work with.

2–3 days

Deep Analysis

"Give me the full picture."
Tiered analysis: top papers get deep extraction with credibility scoring and evidence grounding.

3–5 days

Rapid Response

"I need an answer by Friday."
Top 50 papers, mid-tier analysis, executive brief. For urgent decisions and board prep.

2–4 hours

Hypothesis Test

"Is this claim actually true?"
Deep extraction, credibility assessment, and evidence grounding focused on a specific claim. For due diligence.

2–3 days

Conflict Analysis

"Why do studies disagree about this?"
Structured analysis of conflicting findings with attribution to methodology, data, or context differences.

3–5 days

One evidence base. Unlimited follow-up questions.

Once I've built your evidence base, follow-up questions are answered in minutes. Same corpus, new perspective, new report. No additional research cost.

Initial Engagement

  • 1 Define your research question
  • 2 I build the evidence corpus (300–2,000 papers)
  • 3 Full pipeline: screening, extraction, verification, synthesis
  • 4 Executive brief + detailed report delivered
Typical turnaround
2–3 days

Follow-up Questions

  • "What are the cost implications specifically?"
  • "Which methods show the strongest results?"
  • "What does the European evidence say vs US?"
  • "Summarise for a non-technical board audience"
Each follow-up
5–10 minutes

How this compares

Dimension Traditional Review AI Summary Evidensity Research
Turnaround 6–18 months Minutes 2–5 days
Papers analysed 20–100 (manual) Unknown 300–2,000
Source transparency Full None Full audit trail
Verified source quotes Rarely Hallucination risk Programmatic verification
Credibility assessment Expert judgement None Per-paper scoring
Disagreement detection Sometimes No Structured with attribution
Follow-up questions New engagement New prompt Minutes, same evidence base
Interactive exploration Static PDF Single prompt Q&A, sensitivity, evidence map
Exportable data PDF Text CSV, BibTeX, RIS, HTML

Rigour you can cite

Every claim in every report is traceable to a specific paper, verified against source text, and scored for credibility. No black boxes.

Evidence quality controls

  • Multi-stage screening — papers scored for relevance, then independently gated against defined inclusion/exclusion criteria
  • Evidence grounding — every extracted claim verified as an exact substring of the source paper. Unverifiable claims are flagged and excluded from confidence calculations
  • Credibility assessment — per-paper scoring on methodological rigour, data quality, and reproducibility. Weighted in meta-analysis
  • Disagreement detection — structured identification of conflicting findings with attribution to methodology, data, or context differences

Transparency guarantees

  • PRISMA-style evidence flow — complete paper counts at every stage from identification through synthesis
  • Verified source quotes — reports include programmatically verified verbatim quotes from source papers, not paraphrased or generated text
  • Evidence appendix — table of every verified quote mapped to claim and source paper
  • Explicit limitations — every report states what was not covered, what biases may exist, and what the evidence cannot conclude

By the numbers

10
Academic databases
Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, CrossRef, PubMed, Europe PMC, arXiv, CORE, DOAJ, ERIC, Wikipedia
48h
Evidence base built
Discovery, screening, extraction, credibility scoring, and synthesis — delivered with a full audit trail
48h
First report
Question to executive brief with full evidence package
5m
Follow-up
New question, new report, same evidence base
100%
Source transparency

Every claim linked to a specific paper with APA citation and verified source quote

Every claim
Traced to source

Verified verbatim quotes, APA citations, credibility scores — no paraphrase, no hallucination

6
Engagement types

From 2-hour rapid response to comprehensive deep analysis with paper tiering

Questions Evidensity answers

Healthcare & Life Sciences

  • Treatment efficacy evidence reviews
  • Health technology assessments
  • Regulatory submission evidence packages
  • Clinical pathway evidence mapping

Technology & Innovation

  • Technology landscape assessments
  • Due diligence on scientific claims
  • R&D prioritisation evidence
  • Competitive intelligence synthesis

Policy & Public Sector

  • Rapid evidence assessments
  • Intervention effectiveness reviews
  • Stakeholder briefing preparation
  • Cross-country policy comparisons

Strategy, Legal & Education

  • Investment thesis validation
  • Expert witness research support
  • Grant application evidence bases
  • Curriculum development support

Commission a brief.

Send your research question to evidensity.research@gmail.com. Evidensity will scope the evidence landscape for free — no cost, no commitment.

Start here

Free landscape scan on your first question. No commitment.

Fixed-price engagements

Priced by depth of analysis, not by the hour. Scoped after the landscape scan.

Retainer available

Ongoing evidence support with multiple questions and priority turnaround.