Somewhere in the world today, a doctor will encounter a patient with a condition they have seen once, maybe twice, in their careers. They will recall the broad strokes, but with new medical papers being published every 30 seconds, it is impossible to keep up. The knowledge exists. Having the time t o absorb it, and then act upon it, is the problem. The man who lost his grandfather to a medical error in 2021 understood this differently to most. Daniel Nadler did not seek someone to blame. Instead, he fixated on the structural failure behind it, doctors being buried under data and forced to make high-stakes decisions without immediate access to the information they need. According to Nadler, a physician attempting to stay current with the leading journals and guideline changes in their specialty would need to spend roughly nine hours a day reading before seeing a single patient. That gap between what doctors know and what they need to know, when they need to know it, is where OpenEvidence begins. Although not a medical professional himself, Nadler’s instinct, honed through a Harvard doctorate and a career spent building AI tools for financial markets, was that medicine, had the same structural problem as finance, except the cost of getting it wrong would be measured in lost lives rather than lost profits. Often described as “ChatGPT for doctors”, Nadler disputes this, arguing this is true “if you only squint from a distance” in a statement to the New York Post. The distinction matters. Consumer AI tools are trained on the open internet, which has as much disinformation, as well as outright false information, and contradictions, as it does reliable knowledge. In a medical setting a plausible sounding, but incorrect, answer is not just a minor inconvenience. In contrast to this, OpenEvidence uses specialised models trained exclusively on peer-reviewed medical literature. Every answer is cited, every citation linked to its source. The doctor remains in charge; the platform just ensures they are working with the best, and most up to date, information. This design has earned the trust of the medical profession in a way that few technologies have managed. Dr. Anupam Jena, an internal medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of healthcare policy at Harvard, told NBC News“Everyone is using it“. Another GP has described the platform to Sermo as “freeing us up for what’s most important: our patients,” and Dr. Antonio Forte, a plastic surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, told Forbes that “The biggest difference has been the time savings… I can get an answer in 30 seconds”. As well as individual practitioners reaping the benefit in their daily jobs, partnerships with the likes of The New England Journal of Medicine have been established because senior members want their content to appear in the platform. This is not just a good sale, is a meaningful indicator of credibility at an institutional level. The clinical evidence is encouraging. A 2025 Mayo Clinic study rated OpenEvidence highly for clarity, relevance, and evidence-based support, finding it reinforced rather than replaced physician decision-making. The platform has also achieved a perfect score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination, a benchmark that generic AI tools have repeatedly failed to replicate on more complex and specialised questions. A Harvard Medical School analysis measuring AI clinical search traffic between 2021 and mid-2025, found that OpenEvidence was being used for 98.7% of searches across the leading AI-enabled clinical reference tools. However, OpenEvidence is not without its critics. There are questions still to be answered – do AI-assisted clinical tools risk eroding the diagnostic instincts they are meant to support? Is the current liability framework adequate? Will adoption at the current rate outpace what is safe? Nadler’s argument, the AI sources the information, but the doctor makes the ultimate decision is a reasonable safeguard, in theory. But whether it still stands when a tired doctor at the end of a 12-hour shift turns to OpenEvidence rather than using their own intuition to interrogate further is a more difficult question. We are more medically advanced than we have ever been. Yet the sheer scale of available knowledge has created new pressures rather than alleviating them. “One of the great themes of OpenEvidence,” Nadler is recorded as saying to The VC Notebook, “is that the golden age of biotechnology, is the dark ages of physician burnout.” His vision is not to replace doctors, but to ensure that critical medical knowledge is available at precisely the moment it matters most, so when that rare case walks through the door, the knowledge to handle it is already in the room. The post Information Overload, The Real Risk in Modern Medicine with Daniel Nadler appeared first on LA Weekly. ...read more read less