OpenEvidence
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
3recommend
0warn against
Feb 3, 2026first mention
Jun 28, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“For professional info on the disease:”
Young PCP (primary care physician)on “Encephalitis”
“They've done a good job of capturing the doctor market while offering a useful product.”
Show 1 more
“We replaced them with OpenEvidence.”
switched from UpToDateon “OpenAI's o1 correctly diagnosed 67% of ER patients v…”
Caveats and dissent
No one in these comments warned against it.
Who recommends it in their own words
Threads where it came up
Data: openevidence.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 6
“It does both”
“For professional info on the disease:”
“They've done a good job of capturing the doctor market while offering a useful product.”
“We replaced them with OpenEvidence.”
“I use OpenEvidence. It has access to full text from some of the major medical journals.”
Much of the scientific medical literature is behind paywalls. They have tapped into that datasource (whereas ChatGPT doesn't have access to that data). I suspect that were the medical journals to make a deal with OpenAI to open up the access to their articles/data etc, that open evidence would rely on the existing customers and stickiness of the product, but in that circumstance, they'd be pretty screwed. For example