MedAI Verdict
Research tools

Medical Research

Connected Papers

by Connected Papers

Last verified

Builds a visual graph of papers related to one origin paper, arranged by similarity.

Visit Connected PapersRead our methodology

At a glance

Pricing
5 graphs per month, all features included.
HIPAA
Not disclosed
SOC 2
Not disclosed
EHRs
—
Founded
—
On this page

Independent score  ·  By our public rubric

50/100Solid choice
How it’s computed →
  • Regulatory & Compliance
    0/11

    No FDA clearance listed

  • Clinical Integration
    0/7.8

    No EHR integrations listed

  • Evidence Strength
    27/27

    5 peer-reviewed papers

  • Vendor & Market
    6/18

    Early-stage company

  • Sentiment & Transparency
    6.5/15.5

    Prices listed publicly

▸ Show all 11 dimensions

Regulatory & Compliance

  • FDA clearance0/6

    No FDA clearance listed

  • HIPAA / SOC2 / BAA0/5

    No public HIPAA/SOC2/BAA attestation

Clinical Integration

  • EHR integrations (count)0/4

    No EHR integrations listed

  • Top-3 EHR coverage (Epic / Oracle / Athena)0/2

    None of the top-3 EHRs covered

  • Bidirectional write-back0/1

    No bidirectional write-back documented

Evidence Strength

  • Peer-reviewed papers21/21

    5 peer-reviewed papers

  • RCT / meta-analysis / systematic review6/6

    5 RCT/Meta-Analysis/Systematic Review

Vendor & Market

  • Funding & adoption signal6/12

    Early-stage company

  • Years in market0/6

    Founded year not recorded

Sentiment & Transparency

  • Clinician sentiment (Reddit)0/9

    No clinician sentiment data available

  • Pricing transparency7/7

    Prices listed publicly

Scored October 15, 2026 · Public scoring method v1.1.0

Bottom line

Builds a visual graph of papers related to one origin paper, arranged by similarity.

5 graphs per month, all features included.

Editorial review  ·  By MedAI Verdict

Bottom line

Connected Papers draws a visual graph of papers related to one paper you already have. It is a discovery aid for a researcher who has a good starting reference and wants to see its neighborhood. It does not answer questions or say what the literature concludes.

How does Connected Papers work?

You enter an origin paper by DOI, arXiv, PubMed or Semantic Scholar link, or by title. The tool analyzes on the order of 50,000 papers and keeps the few dozen with the strongest connections, then lays them out by similarity. The about page says the metric rests on co-citation and bibliographic coupling. Papers are arranged by similarity rather than by citation links, so two papers that never cite each other can sit side by side.

Two views help with orientation. Prior Works shows the ancestors of the field, and Derivative Works shows later papers including reviews and the current state of the art. Multi-origin graphs, saved papers and graph history are available on all plans. The data come from the Semantic Scholar Paper Corpus.

Who is behind it?

The about page lists four co-founders, Alex Tarnavsky Eitan, Eddie Smolyansky, Itay Knaan Harpaz and Sahar Perets, and says the project started as a weekend side project between friends. Crunchbase puts the start in November 2019 in Tel Aviv with one to ten employees, and an EA Forum post places the launch in June 2020. Ownership and funding details are not public.

What does it cost?

As of October 2026 the free plan allows 5 graphs per month with all features included. The Academic plan is EUR 4.23 per month, billed EUR 50.81 annually, and the Business plan is EUR 14.12 per month, billed EUR 169.38 annually, both with unlimited graphs. The pricing page shows prices in euros, cancel-anytime with auto-renewal, and no trial or refund terms. Academic is described as for academics, non-profits and personal use. The FAQ calls the free limit enough for most users.

What are its limits?

It shows relatedness and says nothing about quality. The graph depends on the Semantic Scholar corpus, so coverage follows that database. The homepage testimonials are hand-picked by the vendor There are no EHR, HIPAA, SOC 2 or FDA considerations because it handles no patient data.

What does the evidence say?

Two 2025 papers name Connected Papers: a literature review in Patient Education and Counseling and a paper on deep brain stimulation in treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the European Journal of Translational Myology. Neither evaluates how accurate its graphs are.

How does it compare?

ResearchRabbit, Litmaps and Inciteful are the other seed-paper discovery tools. ResearchRabbit's pricing page offers 50 free seed articles, against five graphs a month here. Scite, per its homepage, covers a different question: whether later research supported or contradicted a finding.

Who is it for?

A fellow starting a review on a topic outside their subspecialty can use one landmark paper to find the cluster of work around it. A resident writing a case report around a single good reference can do the same. Someone running a full systematic review needs structured searches of bibliographic databases, and the graph only supplements those.

The verdict

Run your best paper through the free plan and see whether unfamiliar papers appear. If they do, the Academic plan costs EUR 50.81 a year.

Editorial review last generated October 15, 2026. Synthesized from clinician sentiment, peer-reviewed coverage, and our editorial silo picks. Refined by hand where vendor facts change.

Pricing

What it costs

All tiers are custom-quoted. The vendor does not publish per-provider list pricing.

TierMonthlyAnnualNotes
Free——5 graphs per month, all features included.
Academic—EUR 50.81Unlimited graphs, for academics, non-profits and personal use.
Business—EUR 169.38Unlimited graphs.

Source: vendor pricing page. Last checked October 15, 2026.

Peer-reviewed coverage

What the literature says

5 peer-reviewed studies indexed on PubMed evaluate Connected Papers in clinical contexts. The most relevant are shown below, ranked by editorial relevance score combining title match, study design, recency, and journal tier.

Evaluation of AI Tools Versus the PRISMA Method for Literature Search, Data Extraction, and Study Composition in Glaucoma Systematic Reviews: Content Analysis.
Meliante LA, Coco G, Rabiolo A, et al.· JMIR AI· 2025Systematic Review
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly popular in the scientific field, as it allows for the analysis of extensive datasets, summarizes results, and assists in writing academic papers. This study investigates the role of AI in the process of conducting a systematic literature review (SLR), focusing on its contributions and limitations at three key stages of its development, study selection, data extraction, and study composition, using glaucoma-related SLRs as case studies and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-based SLRs as benchmarks.…
Artificial intelligence (AI) for social innovation in health education: promoting health literacy through personalized ai-driven learning tools - a systematic review.
Tbaishat DM, Elfadel MW· BMC Med Educ· 2025Systematic Review
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming health education by enabling personalized, adaptive, and scalable approaches that may enhance aspects of health literacy. Despite rapid adoption, comprehensive synthesis of AI tools' impact on health literacy as social innovation is limited. Understanding these effects guides educators, developers, and policymakers in designing potentially effective, inclusive, and ethical AI interventions. This review examines generative AI models, chatbots, and adaptive learning systems in supporting health literacy globally. A systematic review was conducted fol…
Avoiding 'second victims' in healthcare: what support do staff want for coping with patient safety incidents, what do they get and is it effective? A systematic review.
Simms-Ellis R, Harrison R, Sattar R, et al.· BMJ Open· 2025Systematic Review
Incontrovertible evidence surrounds the need to support healthcare professionals after patient safety incidents (PSIs). However, what characterises effective organisational support is less clearly understood and defined. This review aims to determine what support healthcare professionals want for coping with PSIs, what support interventions/approaches are currently available and which have evidence for effectiveness. Systematic research review with narrative synthesis. Medline, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science databases (from 2010 to mid-2021; updated December 2022), reference lists of eligi…
Presenting summary reports to patients with chronic health conditions to support values-based discussions and decision-making: A literature review.
Cole AC, Liu CC, Bissram J, et al.· Patient Educ Couns· 2025Systematic Review
Patient-centered care is the process of aligning medical decisions with patients' preferences, needs, and values. Helping patients clarify their preferences and values may improve shared decision making (SDM). Understand how summary reports impact patient and clinician behaviors for values-based discussions and SDM related to healthcare decisions. Searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL, with a supplemental search in Connected Papers. Studies presenting summary reports based on self-reported data from patients with chronic conditions and assessing SDM or decisional conflict as it relates…
Effectiveness of deep brain stimulation in alleviating treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review.
Khosravi M· Eur J Transl Myol· 2025Systematic Review
The complexity of schizophrenia, particularly in cases resistant to traditional pharmacological treatments, poses significant challenges for clinicians and researchers. This systematic review synthesizes existing evidence on the effectiveness of deep brain stimulation in treating treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Utilizing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in March 2025 using the "Connected Papers" tool and other sources such as Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus, focusing on studies related to "deep brain stimulation," "treatment-r…

See all on PubMed

In the same category

Other research tools

See the full research tools ranking