Symptom assessment AI
aidoctorscan
aidoctorscan gives a plain-language read of a photo of a visible symptom, with stated limits on its confidence score, and questions to bring to a doctor. Mixed: the upload page says the photo is deleted after the check, while the Privacy Policy lists the photo among the data it collects. The tool fixes its own output, so it sits off the control axis. Documents only, not tested.
Checklist assessment dated October 30, 2026. Independent confirmation is incomplete. Hugo has not personally verified this service.
Agency checklist · October 30, 2026
Mixed 7 of 12 yes
Document-based draft. Independent confirmation is incomplete. Hugo has not personally verified this service.
Assessed function: aidoctorscan public English-language photo symptom checker (free triage scan; paid or full report now free via invite); photo analysis and paid report not tested
A no can mean missing documentation or institution-dependent control; it does not by itself establish harmful behavior. These categories are not clinical safety or product-quality ratings.
- Public documents do not establish actual product behavior.
- The independent review screened rules and selected evidence; it did not replicate all twelve answers for this tool.
See all twelve answers and their evidence
| Question | Answer | Evidence / review | Source and reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Told it is AI | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | our AI returns a triage level, a confidence score, and a plain-language read of what the image may showSource Also site tagline 'AI-assisted health information'. |
| 2. Operator and model maker named | No | not-documented Not independently replicated | Quotation not recorded; evidence repair pending. Source Operator ASTRAFLARE LIMITED, Hong Kong is named. Pages say photos go to 'our AI provider'; the provider and model maker are not named. |
| 3. Patient chooses to use it | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Upload a photo of a visible symptom to get an instant triage level and confidence scoreSource Patient uploads a photo. 'No account needed.' (photo page). |
| 4. Patient sets the task | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Describe your concern (optional)Source Patient chooses the photo and concern. The longer analysis unlocks when the patient invites someone (growth mechanism), which does not change the question asked. |
| 5. Patient can decline or stop | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Upload a photo of a visible symptom to get an instant triage level and confidence scoreSource Self-started rule applied (cites question 3 source). |
| 6. Patient sees the AI output | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Free triage level, confidence score, and a plain-language summary of what the image may showSource Patient sees the triage result. |
| 7. Patient can correct or challenge | No | not-documented Not independently replicated | Quotation not recorded; evidence repair pending. Source Privacy lists a right to rectification of personal data. No documented route to contest the AI result. |
| 8. Patient can get a copy | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Request a copy of all personal data we hold about youSource Data-protection contact in the about page. Result text is kept so the patient can reopen it. |
| 9. Patient can delete | Yes | documented Not independently replicated | Request deletion of your personal dataSource About page: the photo is deleted after one analysis; only result text is kept. |
| 10. Training or sale does not override patient choice | No | not-documented Not independently replicated | Quotation not recorded; evidence repair pending. Source About says 'We do not sell personal information', but the privacy policy lists 'Improving our services' as a use and does not say whether the AI provider or the operator trains on photos or results, and offers no opt-out. |
| 11. Patient can run it or take it elsewhere | No | not-documented Not independently replicated | Quotation not recorded; evidence repair pending. Source Vendor-hosted only. |
| 12. No advertising or data business | No | documented Not independently replicated | We use Google Ads cookies to measure the effectiveness of our advertising campaigns and to provide relevant ads.Source Marketing cookies plus Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity session recording and Plausible. Judgment call under the 'any documented advertising' rule; no ads were seen inside the tool. |
Initial coding: Claude Sonnet helpers, compiled by Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic). Selective review and corrections: GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI). Editor: Hugo Campos. Acceptance of corrections is not product verification.
Checklist rules · Independent review and limitations · Later evidence follow-up
Earlier v1.3 assessment and control finding
Historical assessment under different rules. It does not set the current checklist zone.
Agency finding
Mixed
Control axis not applicable: no patient-set purpose
Disclosure: model provider not disclosed
Fixed-purpose function. aidoctorscan is a symptom-triage function operated by ASTRAFLARE LIMITED, Hong Kong, whose output type the operator fixes: one of four urgency levels with a confidence score and summary (D4), with use limited by the Terms to 'first-step symptom triage' (D8). The patient's own input is real-time, but the patient supplies a photo and facts and cannot set a different purpose, so the control axis does not apply. On the institutional-to-patient-directed line it sits toward the operator-set end because its rail is the fixed kind of output, not because of who runs it. The fixed purpose, telling someone how soon to seek care, is close to what a person checking a symptom usually wants. Evidence of conflict with the patient's purposes is limited to the full analysis being withheld until the patient recruits another user, unless the result suggests a specialist (D7), and to marketing cookies on a health-photo service (D6). The model developer is not disclosed (D13). This finding rests on documents only.
- Evidence
- Documentary review. Public sources only, no hands-on testing by HugoScore.
- Review status
- Human adjudication: Hugo Campos settled named questions (what was reviewed, the disclosure results, any coder disagreement). Not verification of the service's claims.
- Coded by
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI) Conflict check open: the model developer is not known.
- Method
- HugoScore method v1.3
- Refuse or leave The notice contradicts itself on whether the uploaded photo is kept documented, not tested
At the point of upload the site says 'Your photo is sent securely for this check, then deleted. We don't keep it.' and the FAQ says it is 'never saved to our database' (D5). The Privacy Policy says 'When you run a scan, we collect: The photo you upload', lists 'Improving our services' among uses, describes storage with 'regular backups', gives no retention period, and omits the AI provider that the product pages say receives the photo (D6). A person reading the notice at entry cannot tell whether their symptom photo is retained, reused or held by an unnamed provider. Blocked ability: informed entry before uploading a body image. Documented; the actual retention practice is unknown.
Earlier evidence and assessment
The sections below preserve the earlier review. Its classifications and provenance are historical; the checklist above gives the current draft classification.
Earlier finding · Control axis not applicable: no patient-set purpose
Method v1.3. The control line is evidence for how the agency finding arose, not a quality score.
Mixed
Useful uncertainty explanations coexist with conflicting privacy and access statements and unresolved correction mechanisms. No numerical agency ranking is assigned.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Could help people understand uncertainty, formulate questions and consider a next step.
Users cannot readily reconcile the published data conditions or independently evaluate the basis of an urgency label. Real-world performance and correction mechanisms remain untested.
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
People initiate the concern, but control of the assumptions behind an urgency label is not established.
Can patients tell AI is involved?
AI involvement is prominent. The model and version are not disclosed in the reviewed material.
Can patients meaningfully choose?
Conflicting account and storage statements complicate an informed decision before sharing a photo.
Can patients correct or challenge the output?
A personal-data correction right does not establish a route to challenge the assessment or obtain a corrected report.
Does it help patients understand or act?
The described workflow offers next steps and optional visit preparation. No generated result or clinical outcome was evaluated.
Can patients evaluate the conditions of use?
The detailed confidence explanation is useful, but calibration, data handling and provider identity remain unresolved.
Text findings
What happens to patient data?
Partial and conflicting
Photo retention statements disagree. AI-provider handling, training use and deletion completion are not settled by the reviewed documents. Analytics are disclosed, but their receipt of health content was not established.
Who is left out or burdened?
Not independently evaluated
Camera quality, skin tone, language comprehension, digital access and paid detail may affect benefit. Accessibility and subgroup performance were not tested.
Are the clinical boundaries clear?
Partial
The service acknowledges that serious conditions can be missed. Its disclaimers and urgency guidance were reviewed, but their operation and comprehension in a generated result were not tested.
Who defined what good looks like?
Not disclosed
Patient authority over evaluation, independent clinical oversight and an appeals process were not established in the reviewed sources.
Earlier review provenance
Criteria
HugoScore method v1.3, published October 30, 2026 (hugoscore.org/framework).
Reviewer
AI coders working from public sources under the v1.3 review procedure, with adjudication by Hugo Campos
AI / model
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), coder 1; GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI), coder 2
Human review
Hugo Campos settled named questions on October 30, 2026: what was reviewed and the disclosure results, plus posture disagreement: Mixed (notice contradiction supported). He has not verified the service's claims.
Review date
2026-10-30
Limitations
Documentary review of public sources only. No account, interaction testing, health-data upload, security audit or vendor interview. Vendor statements are not independent validation.
Earlier review method
HugoScore method v1.3 documentary review of public sources, listed in the report. Coded independently by two AI coders. No account, interaction testing or health-data upload.
Document-based draft · Medium confidence in the agency finding, medium for control. Documentary evidence only.