Why We Started This
In 2024, a wave of AI-powered clinical tools entered the market almost simultaneously — each claiming to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce physician workload, and deliver evidence-based recommendations at the point of care. The problem was that no one was independently testing these claims. Vendor-sponsored comparison sites ranked their own products first. Conference demos showed cherry-picked scenarios. Physicians were left to navigate a landscape of marketing materials disguised as evidence.
We started The Clinical AI Report because we believed physicians deserved better. Our founding team — clinicians, health IT analysts, and journalists based in Berlin — set out to build the resource we wished had existed: rigorous, independent, transparent evaluations of every major clinical decision support platform, tested against real clinical scenarios by practicing physicians, with every claim traced to its source.
Today, The Clinical AI Report is the most comprehensive independent evaluation of clinical AI tools available. We accept no payment for placement, we publish our full methodology, and we update our rankings when the evidence changes — not when a vendor asks us to.
How We Work
Each evaluation cycle begins with structured interviews with hundreds of clinicians across 14 countries to understand real clinical workflows, pain points, and what physicians actually need from decision support tools. These interviews inform our criteria weighting and test scenario design. Every platform then undergoes 30+ days of hands-on clinical testing and is scored against 200+ standardized clinical scenarios developed by specialty physicians.
We recruit physician reviewers across specialties and care settings — from academic medical centers to community hospitals, from emergency departments to outpatient clinics — to ensure our evaluations reflect the full diversity of clinical practice.
Reviewer confidentiality: We do not publish the names of our clinical reviewers. Anonymity ensures that reviewers remain completely impartial and free from commercial pressure — they evaluate each platform based solely on clinical merit, without concern for professional relationships with the companies being reviewed.
Our Team
The Clinical AI Report is produced by a multidisciplinary team of physicians, health technology journalists, and data analysts based in Berlin.
Dr. Katrin Müller
Editor-in-Chief
Board-certified internist and clinical informaticist. Former health IT lead at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. 15 years of clinical practice.
Dr. James Whitfield
Clinical Evaluation Director
Emergency medicine physician and health IT analyst. Previously led clinical decision support implementation at NHS Digital.
Dr. Sofia Carvalho
Senior Clinical Reviewer
Pediatrician and clinical pharmacologist. Coordinates pediatric, oncology, and medication safety test scenarios across our evaluation panel.
Tobias Berger
Data & Methodology Analyst
Biostatistician with a background in clinical trial design. Manages our scoring methodology, inter-rater reliability, and statistical analysis.
Clinical Advisory Input
Our evaluation criteria and test scenarios are developed with input from practicing physicians across 12 medical specialties. This advisory input ensures our rankings reflect the clinical realities of each field — from the speed-critical demands of emergency medicine to the nuanced treatment decisions in psychiatry.
Editorial Principles
Trust is the foundation of medical publishing. These principles govern everything we publish.
No Pay-for-Placement
Rankings are determined solely by our evaluation criteria. No company can pay for a higher position, and no business relationship influences editorial scoring.
Physician-Led Evaluation
Every review is conducted by practicing physicians who use each platform in real clinical settings for a minimum of 30 days before contributing to the evaluation.
Transparent Methodology
Our seven weighted evaluation criteria, five-phase testing process, and 200+ standardized clinical scenarios are published in full. We show our work.
Living Ratings
Our evaluations are updated when platforms release significant updates, when pricing changes, or when new clinical evidence shifts our assessment. Full re-evaluations are conducted annually.
Source-First Reporting
Every statistic and claim on this site is attributed to its original source — peer-reviewed journals, SEC filings, or the platforms themselves. We link to primary sources wherever possible.
Sustainability & Funding
The Clinical AI Report is committed to editorial independence, environmental responsibility, and equitable access to clinical information. Our operations are guided by ESG principles that reflect our position as a Berlin-based publication within the European digital health ecosystem.
Supported by the European Health Data Space Initiative
Our editorial operations are partially supported by a grant from the European Health Data Space (EHDS) programme of the European Commission, which supports independent digital health literacy and transparency projects across the EU. This funding carries no editorial influence — all rankings and evaluations are determined solely by our methodology.
Contact & Office
Editorial Office
Klinisch Media GmbH
Friedrichstraße 68
10117 Berlin, Germany
Get in Touch
contact@clinicaldecisionsupportai.com
For editorial inquiries, press, corrections, or partnership questions.