Clinical decision support
BastionGPT
BastionGPT remains a professional-controlled AI workspace. August terms strengthen restrictions on model evaluation and derivative-data creation. Those commitments protect data without transferring clinical goals, capture, or output authority to patients.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 16 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Professional and institution-controlled clinical AI workspace. Preserve the July 27 external-submission disclosure and 16 baseline, not an endorsement.
Mixed, strongly institution-directed
BastionGPT remains a professional-controlled AI workspace. August terms strengthen restrictions on model evaluation and derivative-data creation. Those commitments protect data without transferring clinical goals, capture, or output authority to patients.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Clinician review and patient-facing documents may help, but no direct patient access to prompts, source transcripts or an individual appeal process was established. The narrow prior PICU study cannot validate this broader platform.
Enforcement, actual routing, local refusal and access to source artifacts were not tested. The older broad security-page retention wording was not separately rechecked.
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
Professionals retain prompt, model, retention and output authority. Stronger vendor contractual restrictions protect patients' data without giving patients direct control over clinical objectives, capture or correction.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Clinician review and patient-facing documents may help, but no direct patient access to prompts, source transcripts or an individual appeal process was established. The narrow prior PICU study cannot validate this broader platform.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
Credit the explicit new model-evaluation and derivative-data prohibitions. The retention explanation now needs content-specific wording. Listed processors still do not completely explain every marketed model path, and local patient notice remains a separate requirement from professional account controls.
Text findings
Why is this tool included?
First externally submitted tool; not selected or endorsed by the project owner
BastionGPT was submitted for review through HugoScore's public tool-submission channel on 2026-07-27. The project owner states that it was not selected by them and is HugoScore's first tool added from an external submission. Publishing this draft records the review response and does not endorse the submission, vendor, or product.
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
Credit the explicit new model-evaluation and derivative-data prohibitions. The retention explanation now needs content-specific wording. Listed processors still do not completely explain every marketed model path, and local patient notice remains a separate requirement from professional account controls.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
Enforcement, actual routing, local refusal and access to source artifacts were not tested. The older broad security-page retention wording was not separately rechecked.
Who evaluated this?
AI-assisted public-source draft
Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.
Sources checked
- https://bastionintelligence.com/terms
- https://support.bastiongpt.com/en/articles/15826869-how-long-does-bastiongpt-keep-my-data-and-how-do-i-delete-it
- https://support.bastiongpt.com/en/articles/14464971-do-you-have-consent-form-templates-for-healthcare-ai-use
Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.
Review provenance
Criteria
CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.
Reviewer
AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.
AI / model
OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
Human review
Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
Review date
2026-09-08
Limitations
Enforcement, actual routing, local refusal and access to source artifacts were not tested. The older broad security-page retention wording was not separately rechecked. No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.
Review method
Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
AI-assisted draft · Medium for contractual changes, limited for local practice (AI-assisted draft)