i tested basically every AI tool i could find for med school research. most are useless unless you already know enough to catch them lying.

A medical student overwhelmed by the growing burden of literature review decided to test virtually every AI tool they could find, from general-purpose chatbots to specialized research assistants. Their findings: most tools look promising at first glance but quickly reveal critical gaps when asked for exact citations, guideline-level nuance, or clinically sound answers. ChatGPT excels at explaining complex topics but frequently fabricates references. Perplexity returns quick links but lacks depth for rigorous research. The student found Elicit and Consensus useful for surfacing relevant papers, yet both stop short of providing the detailed context needed for medical decision-making.

SciSpace helps parse dense academic text, but still requires users to cross-check every claim. The only tool that showed genuine domain-specific potential was Noah, designed for biomedical queries. However, even Noah remains under testing, and the student emphasizes that every AI output still demands manual verification. The core takeaway: while these tools can speed up initial exploration, no current AI solution can replace a researcher's deep knowledge and critical eye – a reality that limits efficiency gains for medical professionals.