Clinical AI that holds up under review
Evigauge
Healthcare · Use case
An unexplained clinical answer is unusable. Evigauge grades outputs against their cited evidence and keeps patient data inside your walls.
Healthcare
Clinical AI scales at the speed of governance. Evidence is what moves governance.
The situation
Documentation, coding, prior authorisation, literature review and triage support. Most sits beside a clinician, and all of it touches protected data.
Clinical governance asks one question of any tool: show me how it reached that. A system that cannot answer does not get deployed.
Where the value leaks
Three costs land before anyone files a ticket. None of them shows up as a failure, which is exactly why they persist.
| Cost | Where it goes |
|---|---|
| TIME | Governance review stalls deployment Pilots sit in review for months because nobody can evidence how outputs are produced or where data goes. |
| COST | Value stays stuck in pilot The spend is committed, the benefit is not, and the programme is judged on a pilot that never scaled. |
| RISK | PHI exposure is unbounded Once text leaves the estate you cannot say with confidence what was sent, or what is retained. |
One answer, beat by beat
A single run, with the record Evigauge writes at each step and what that record is worth once it exists.
- 01
Clinical question· PII redacted
Patient data is stripped before anything is stored.
- 02
Evidence retrieved· Sources consulted
Governance sees exactly which evidence informed the output.
- 03
Draft written· Reasoning path
“Show me how it reached that” has an answer on file.
- 04
Grounding check· Per-claim verdict
Clinical attention goes to the statements evidence does not support.
- 05
Clinician review· Sealed audit trail
Pilots clear review on evidence, so value stops stalling.
What we bring to it
Each capability, what it does to the run, and the result the business can hold someone to.
| Offering | What it does | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| Grounding | Checks each clinical claim against the source cited for it and flags statements the evidence does not support. | Clinicians see which statements are backed, so review is targeted rather than total. |
| Governance & security | Redacts PII before storage, enforces a closed knowledge base with no open-web egress, and runs air-gapped where required. | A deployment your information governance board can approve on the evidence. |
| Provenance | Records the sources consulted, cited and omitted for every answer, in a sealed audit trail. | An answer can be explained months later, to whoever asks. |
What actually changes
Pilots stall in clinical governance
Review is answered with evidence, not assurances
Every AI output is fully re-checked
Unsupported statements are flagged for review
Data residency is a matter of trust
Air-gapped deployment, PII redacted before storage
Around the table
The question each officer is asked, and the answer this puts in their hands.
Chief Medical Information Officer
“Is this safe to put near a clinician?”
Unsupported claims are marked, so clinical attention goes where it is needed.
CISO
“Where does patient data go?”
Nowhere. Closed knowledge base, no egress, and the log to evidence it.
Head of Clinical Governance
“Can we explain this in six months?”
The sourcing and the reasoning are recorded at the time, not reconstructed later.
Clinical AI scales at the speed of governance. Evidence is what moves governance.
Ready to see it on your own workload?
Bring one real run. We will show you what happened.