Condition-specific coaching and care AI
CureWise
CureWise supports cancer-record questions, adjustable explanations, and trial discovery. Record grounding and match reasons may help patients check options. Agreement between models is not independent validation, especially for treatment guidance.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 84 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Patient-directed cancer record interpretation, multi-model comparison and trial discovery, under vendor-hosted processing.
Potentially agency-expanding, mixed
CureWise supports cancer-record questions, adjustable explanations, and trial discovery. Record grounding and match reasons may help patients check options. Agreement between models is not independent validation, especially for treatment guidance.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Match reasons and record grounding can support inquiry. Model consensus is not independent verification, especially in the concrete treatment example.
Trial-count interpretation, model data flows, derived-fact correction and independent performance remain unverified
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
Patients choose questions and explanation depth and can take answers to their own care team. The vendor's model selection and synthesis still shape the apparent answer.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Match reasons and record grounding can support inquiry. Model consensus is not independent verification, especially in the concrete treatment example.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
Formal rights and revocation are useful documented conditions. External-provider context, retention and training restrictions remain unresolved from the reviewed material.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
Formal rights and revocation are useful documented conditions. External-provider context, retention and training restrictions remain unresolved from the reviewed material.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
Trial-count interpretation, model data flows, derived-fact correction and independent performance remain unverified
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
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
Trial-count interpretation, model data flows, derived-fact correction and independent performance remain unverified 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 · Low to moderate for public design, limited for accuracy and runtime controls (AI-assisted draft)