Evidence pilot · now recruiting

Align your reviewers before the real screening starts.

Orivion is an early systematic-review screening workspace built around explicit criteria, reviewer calibration, independent decisions, conflict resolution, and a traceable record of how the team reached each outcome.

Apply for the evidence pilot See the screening workflow

No payment during the evidence pilot. No automatic-exclusion claims.

Review setup recordExample workspace
Telemedicine in chronic disease

Title-and-abstract screening · dual independent review

Eligibility criteria confirmedRecorded

The team works from one version of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Calibration batch reviewedDiscuss

Three disagreements are visible before the main screening workload begins.

κ 0.72
example
Independent screeningReady

Solo or dual-blind modes keep decisions and reviewer roles explicit.

Conflicts and outputsNext

Resolve disagreements, preserve the rationale, and generate PRISMA and audit outputs.

Illustrative interface preview using synthetic review data.

The problem under study

Disagreement is a method problem before it becomes a workload problem.

Screening is not only a sequence of include and exclude clicks. Teams must translate criteria into consistent judgments, work independently, and preserve the reasoning behind difficult decisions.

01

The protocol does not screen the papers. People do.

Eligibility language that looks clear on paper can produce different decisions when reviewers meet borderline records.

02

Agreement is often measured after the costly work has begun.

A pilot batch, visible disagreement patterns, and a deliberate recalibration loop can surface interpretation gaps earlier.

03

Conflict resolution can erase the reasoning that matters.

A final decision is easier to defend when reviewer votes, criteria, discussion, and adjudication remain connected.

04

AI adds value only when authority stays visible.

Recommendations may assist a reviewer, but the workflow must show what the model suggested, what the human decided, and what remains unvalidated.

One connected evidence trail

From written criteria to a defensible screening record.

The current pilot focuses on screening and PRISMA outputs. It does not claim to replace every systematic-review tool or stage.

1

Set the review up

Import citations, confirm eligibility criteria, choose solo or dual review, and assign reviewer roles.

2

Calibrate the team

Screen a shared batch, calculate agreement statistics, examine disagreements, and revise guidance when needed.

3

Screen independently

Work through assigned records while blinded decisions, reasons, batches, and progress remain explicit.

4

Resolve and report

Adjudicate conflicts, retain the decision trail, and produce PRISMA flow and project audit outputs.

Product proof, not feature theater

The mechanism should be visible before the claim is believed.

These illustrative previews reflect implemented workflow areas that still require full-stack testing with real review teams.

Independent screening · blind
Screen against the criteria in view.
Batch 3 of 5 · 24 of 50 records
IncludeAdults with chronic disease
ExcludeConference abstracts only
Remote glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetesWilliams et al. · 2022
Include
Telemedicine interventions in chronic diseasePatel et al. · 2023
Maybe
Remote monitoring: conference proceedingsChen et al. · 2021
Exclude
Virtual pulmonary rehabilitation for COPDSingh et al. · 2024
Include
Illustrative preview · synthetic references
Conflict review
Make disagreement inspectable.
Two reviewers reached different decisions
Conflict · review required
Reviewer AInclude

“Population and intervention meet the current eligibility criteria.”

Reviewer BExclude

“Outcome timing may fall outside the protocol definition.”

Record adjudication
Decision provenance retainedVotes · reasons · discussion · resolver
Audit
PRISMA counts updatedWorkflow output, not a compliance guarantee
Export
Illustrative preview · synthetic reviewers

Current evidence boundary

Built to earn trust in stages.

Orivion is under evaluation. The pilot exists to test whether the workflow is correct, usable, and valuable on real reviews before pricing or performance promises are finalized.

Available in the current workflow

Citation import, solo or dual-blind screening, calibration with agreement statistics, conflict handling, and PRISMA/audit outputs.

Human control over AI

AI recommendations are optional, visible, and reviewable. Pilot setup may be guided while server-side key handling is completed.

Not an automatic-exclusion promise

Automatic exclusion and statistical stopping remain unavailable as public performance claims until validation gates are satisfied.

Not yet an end-to-end platform

The pilot centers on screening and PRISMA outputs. Extraction, risk of bias, synthesis, procurement controls, and final pricing are not promised here.

Guided evidence pilot

Bring a real review. Help shape a more rigorous screening workflow.

The pilot is designed for researchers and small academic teams who can test Orivion with an authorized health systematic-review citation set and share candid feedback at key workflow milestones.

One guided setup session

Define the baseline workflow, import the citation set, and configure reviewer mode and criteria.

Two short feedback checkpoints

Review calibration or the first batch, then assess conflicts, outputs, trust, and workflow friction.

No charge during the evidence pilot

At an agreed milestone, participants may be shown pricing concepts and asked for an honest continuation decision. No payment is collected here.

Private by default

No name, institution, quotation, logo, or case study is published without separate written permission.

Before you apply

Clear answers, including the limitations.

Who is the first pilot for?

English-speaking postgraduate researchers, clinician-researchers, early-career researchers, supervisors, and small academic teams working on health systematic reviews. Librarians and methods specialists may also join as evaluators.

Does Orivion replace Rayyan, Covidence, or the full review workflow?

That is not the current claim. The pilot tests a focused screening workflow: import, criteria, calibration, solo or dual-blind decisions, conflicts, and PRISMA/audit outputs.

Will AI exclude studies automatically?

No public pilot promise permits unattended automatic exclusion. AI assistance, when used, remains visible and subject to human review. Performance and stopping claims require separate validation.

Is PRISMA output the same as being “PRISMA compliant”?

No. Orivion can generate workflow-derived PRISMA output, but the page does not claim formal compliance or guarantee that a review satisfies every reporting requirement.

How much will Orivion cost?

Pricing is still under research. The evidence pilot is not charged. Any later pricing discussion will state the tested offer and known limitations before asking for a continuation decision.

Can an institution purchase Orivion now?

Not yet. Institutional procurement, SSO, administrative controls, compliance documentation, and support commitments remain future readiness gates.