About / method
HugoScore asks whether health AI gives patients more say in their care, or less. It looks at who a tool serves, who controls it, what patients can see, and what they can do if something feels wrong.
HugoScore is run by Hugo Campos, a patient advocate. Hugo helped write the research framework behind HugoScore with Liz Salmi. His work focuses on patient access to health information, including data from devices in their bodies and devices they use at home.
Health AI is often judged by accuracy, speed, use, or rules. HugoScore adds a patient view. It asks whether a tool gives people more clarity, choice, and practical power inside health care.
Method
Reviews are led by Hugo Campos. AI helps gather public research, but a human checks the profile before it is posted.
Sources include product pages, privacy and security pages, patient notices, studies, news reports, and reader fixes.
The 0-100 number is not a grade. It shows where a tool sits between system control and patient choice.
Placement is based on who the tool serves, what patients can see, whether they can choose or object, how data is handled, and what evidence is public.
Profiles update when important new evidence appears, when readers send supported fixes, or during planned checks. Each profile shows its last review date, method, status, and confidence.
Hugo-led review, supported by research drafts and human judgment before publication.
Official sources, policies, patient materials, studies, trusted reporting, and reader evidence.
0 to 100 places the tool between system control and patient choice. It is not a safety, quality, or buying score.
Profiles refresh when evidence changes, corrections are accepted, or a scheduled review pass is completed.