Run systematic reviews in days. Keep them current.
End-to-end evidence synthesis for quantitative, network and qualitative reviews, with team roles, two-person sign-off, and Living reviews. Ship reviews in days. Keep them defensible for years.
Built with evidence-synthesis teams across academia, clinical guideline groups, and national HTA bodies.
Free tier runs the full pipeline on one real review, end to end.
The primary outcome occurred in 31 of 210 patients in the intervention group and 49 of 205 in the control group.
- PRISMA 2020
- PRISMA-NMA
- Cochrane RoB 2.0
- GRADE
- Cochrane Handbook
A 7-RCT meta-analysis, reproduced in 2 days by a single analyst.
Source: Zhang et al. 2024 — “Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC”AI hallucinates numbers. A pooled effect estimate is only worth its weight if it’s reproducible and auditable — the moment an LLM is in the calculation path, no HTA reviewer at NICE, IQWiG, or CADTH will accept it. So we don’t put one there. AI handles the language work; deterministic code handles every number, judgement, and certainty rating.
We independently reproduced a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable NSCLC — originally a five-author project. One analyst using Axelium completed it end-to-end: screening, extraction, pooled analysis, sensitivity, publication bias, subgroups, meta-regression, and GRADE.
Systematic reviews are essential—and painfully slow.
A single review can take 6–9 months, involve hundreds of references, and require stitching together a patchwork of database portals, screening tools, spreadsheets, and ad-hoc statistical scripts.
Most of that time is spent on repetitive work: configuring search strategies, screening thousands of abstracts, extracting data from dense PDFs, and re-running statistical models whenever studies change.
Axelium replaces the patchwork with a single, auditable platform—so you can focus on the science, not the plumbing.
From PICO to publication.
The live demo needs no account: click through screening, extracted outcomes and their sources, risk-of-bias, and the pooled forest plot.
When evidence arrives late, decisions get made anyway.
These are the failures that make HTA reviewers, guideline committees, and HEOR teams demand defensible synthesis on time — not just defensible synthesis.
“Benefits ‘too small to justify the cost to the NHS’”
NICE rejected lecanemab and donanemab — the first disease-modifying Alzheimer’s drugs in a generation — denying access to an estimated 70,000+ early-stage patients in England and Wales.
“£424M spent stockpiling a drug that didn’t reduce hospitalisations”
Cochrane’s review of 160,000+ pages of clinical study reports — extracted from the manufacturer after a 4.5-year transparency battle — concluded Tamiflu didn’t reduce flu hospitalisations or pneumonia. The audit was true; the stockpile was already paid for.
Slow evidence is expensive. Fast evidence is defensible. That’s the trade we built Axelium to break.
Why Axelium instead of spreadsheets, point tools, or generic AI?
End-to-end workflow for systematic reviews of trials and qualitative evidence, with AI-assisted extraction and coding, deterministic stats, and full traceability — benchmarked against published research.
| Capability | Manual workflow | Screening-only tools | Generic AI | Axelium |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Platform | ||||
| End-to-end in one platform | ||||
| Living review automation | ||||
| Search and screening | ||||
| Search & database ingestion | ||||
| Search across 8 databases | ||||
| Citation chasing (Semantic Scholar) | ||||
| AI-assisted abstract screening | ||||
| Extraction and analysis | ||||
| Full-text PDF extraction | ||||
| Deterministic statistical models | ||||
| Custom methods, kept audit-ready | ||||
| Network meta-analysis | ||||
| Qualitative synthesis (coding, themes, CERQual) | ||||
| Appraisal and reporting | ||||
| Risk-of-bias appraisal (RoB 2) | ||||
| GRADE certainty of evidence | ||||
| Source-linked audit trail | ||||
| PRISMA-style reporting | ||||
| Team and governance | ||||
| Role-based access (admin / lead / reviewer / viewer) | ||||
| Two-person protocol sign-off | ||||
Organisations, access control, sign-off, and an audit trail—out of the box.
Solo researcher, three-person Cochrane group, or a CRO running twenty parallel reviews—the team layer is built into the same workflow you already use. An organisation gives your institution one home for its workspaces, people and reviews, with control over who can see and change each one.
See the team workflow →- Protocol locked (signed off)
- Screening locked (signed off)
- 3Extraction lockedAwaiting second approver
- 4Analysis frozen
- 5Manuscript locked
Pick the next step that matches your work.
Your review stays current — and tells you when it matters.
Turn any completed review into a living review. On a daily, weekly, or monthly schedule, Axelium re-runs the whole pipeline — search, screening, extraction, risk of bias — surfaces new studies in a review inbox for triage, and re-pools the meta-analysis so your evidence base never goes stale.
Instead of restarting a review from scratch every few years, you maintain one continuously updated evidence base — and hear about it the moment a pooled result moves.
A systematic review begun in 2016 synthesised more than 700 papers on Zika virus. By the time it published in January 2017, a further 1,400 had appeared — out of date before it arrived. Living reviews exist so that never happens to yours.
See how living reviews work →- Re-ran search · 8 databases2 new recordsnow
- Screening complete1 study added3h
- Re-pooled meta-analysisPooled result movedRR 0.78 → 0.76
- King's College London
- University of Oxford
- University of Alberta
NVIDIA Inception ProgramReady to automate your next review?
Start a new project in minutes, explore Axelium with real data, and see how much manual work you can eliminate.