DISSERTATIONS · RESEARCH ARTICLES · SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS · GRANT PROPOSALS

From first draft to publication-ready.

InkPhD is the scientific writing OS for medical research — dissertations, research articles, systematic reviews, clinical protocols, grant proposals, and more. Evidence-grounded text with strict [1] [2] citations, EQUATOR compliance, and a Pre-publish Readiness Score that tells you whether your manuscript would survive peer review or a defense — before you submit.

Start writing your manuscript See the workspace

EQUATOR guidelines

Hallucinated cites

AI defense reviewers

inkphd.com / workspace / phd-pancreatitis

Literature Review · 6,210 words

2.3 Surgical management of severe acute pancreatitis

Open necrosectomy was the historical standard, with mortality reported between 23 % and 38 % across high-volume centers[1][2]. The minimally invasive step-up approach reduced new-onset multi-organ failure by an absolute 21 % (95 % CI 8–34, p = 0.002)[3].

Subsequent meta-analyses, however, found no statistically significant difference in 90-day mortality[4], suggesting that the benefit derives from avoided complications rather than survival per se.

[3] van Santvoort HC, et al. Step-up vs open necrosectomy. N Engl J Med. 2010.

[4] Bakker OJ, et al. Endoscopic vs surgical drainage. JAMA. 2012.

Pre-publish Score

Defense-ready

BUILT FOR THE STANDARDS OF

Harvard MedicalKarolinskaUniversité ParisCochraneNEJM AIEQUATOR Network

EVIDENCE ENGINE

The same prompt, two universes apart.

Plain LLMs invent confident citations to studies that don't exist. InkPhD only cites papers in your own evidence library, with verifiable DOIs and PMIDs.

Generic LLM · No grounding Risk

"Open necrosectomy carries a mortality rate of approximately 36 %(Smith et al., 2019), whereas the minimally invasive approach reduces mortality to 12 % (Johnson 2021). A recent meta-analysis confirms this finding(Chen et al., 2023; n = 4,210)."

Smith et al. 2019 — paper does not exist
Chen 2023 (n = 4,210) — fabricated sample size
95 % CI and p-value omitted

InkPhD · Evidence-grounded Verified

"Open necrosectomy was historically associated with mortality between 23 % and 38 % across high-volume centers[1]. The step-up minimally invasive approach reduced new-onset multi-organ failure by 21 % (95 % CI 8–34, p = 0.002)[2], though 90-day mortality did not differ significantly[3]."

Every [n] resolves to a real DOI in your library
Effect sizes copied verbatim with 95 % CI
Cross-checked against Crossref + NCBI

InkPhD pre-loads your dissertation's evidence pack into per-chapter ChromaDB collections, then forces the language model to cite ONLY from that pack — using the exact Manubot tokens provided by the retrieval layer.

THE WORKSPACE

Document-centered. Three panes. Zero context-switching.

Hierarchy, editor, intelligence — laid out as a research instrument, not a chat window.

LEFT PANE

Section Hierarchy

Drag-and-drop reorder up to 3 levels of subsections. Each section owns its own evidence library — strict retrieval isolation prevents leakage across topics.

Sub-section nesting up to depth 2
Library badge per section
AI Structure Builder (auto-proposes structure in 8s)

CENTER PANE

Scientific Editor

Vancouver-style numbered citations are rendered live. Tab to accept ghost-text continuations. Continue button finishes the current paragraph without breaking structure.

Vancouver / APA 7 / AMA 11 / BibTeX export
Live ghost-text Jenni-style editor
Selection toolbar: expand · shorten · academic tone

RIGHT PANE

Intelligence Panel

Scientific Copilot, Inline Evidence Inspector, Citation Verifier, EQUATOR snapshot — five live tabs running in parallel against the section you are writing.

AI Copilot · grounded in your library
Verifier · Crossref + NCBI cross-check
Reviewer · severity-scored issues with auto-fix

ONE WORKSPACE · TEN PROJECT TYPES

Whatever you're writing, the engines adapt.

Pick your project type at creation and the entire workspace reconfigures — guideline catalogue, structure templates, prompt persona, and readiness criteria all shift accordingly.

PhD

Doctoral Dissertation

Multi-chapter thesis with composite EQUATOR guideline · sub-section nesting · defense simulation.

Research Article

IMRAD structure for original research · target a specific journal · abstract + figures.

Systematic Review

PRISMA-compliant · auto-extracted PICO tables · risk-of-bias scaffolding.

Meta-analysis

Forest-plot ready · effect-size aggregation · heterogeneity reporting.

Clinical Protocol

SPIRIT-compliant trial protocols · ethics statement · CONSORT-ready outline.

Grant Proposal

Specific aims · innovation · approach · with budget-justification scaffolding.

Case Report

CARE-compliant single-patient narrative · timeline · informed-consent reminder.

Conference Abstract

Structured 250–300 word abstract for ESMO / ASCO / NEJM AI etc.

Book / Monograph

Chapter-based long-form · same hierarchy + section libraries as dissertation.

Editorial / Commentary

Short opinion piece grounded in your evidence library, with hedged scholarly voice.

PREMIUM ENGINES

Six independent analyzers. One readiness score.

Every analyzer runs in parallel against your manuscript and reports back into a single weighted Pre-publish Readiness audit.

THE MOAT · PRE-PUBLISH READINESS

Will my manuscript survive peer review?

A single 0-100 audit aggregating Citation Verifier · EQUATOR · Statistical Reporting Checker · Research Gap Detector · Novelty · Library Coverage · Length. Action items are deduped and priority-sorted.

92/100 Citations78/100 EQUATOR64/100 Stats

runs in 30-60 s

4 LLMs in parallel

persisted per chapter

COMPLIANCE

11 EQUATOR guidelines · 426 checklist items

CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, TRIPOD+AI, STARD, CARE, SPIRIT, CHEERS, ARRIVE, CONSORT-AI, CLAIM — plus a custom 42-point DISSERTATION composite curated from ICMJE + Vancouver.

DEFENSE PREP

5 AI reviewers · simulated panel

Clinician · Statistician · Methodology · Journal · Committee — each returns headline concerns, unsupported claims, and suggested defense responses.

PAPERQA2-STYLE

Claim Grounding · per-claim verdicts

Each atomic claim retrieved, judged supported / partial / unsupported. Unsupported claims get a one-click 'start refinement' suggestion.

WAVE D

Stats · Gaps · Novelty

10-item statistical reporting audit, prioritized research-gap detection, and novelty scoring 0-10 per substantive claim — with verbatim quotes.

DEFENSE READINESS

The five questions your committee will ask. Before they ask them.

Run a parallel simulation against five distinct reviewer personas — each trained to surface the gap your draft is hoping you won't notice.

CLINICAL.RELEVANCE

The Clinician

Senior attending

"What is the absolute risk reduction in your high-grade subgroup?"

STATS.METHODOLOGY

The Statistician

Biostatistics chair

"Multiple testing correction is not stated; α inflated to ~0.17."

STUDY.DESIGN

The Methodologist

Cochrane editor

"Selection bias is plausible; sensitivity analysis recommended."

EDITORIAL.RIGOR

The Journal

NEJM associate

"Abstract overstates novelty relative to van Santvoort 2010."

DEFENSE.READINESS

The Committee

Defense chair

"Where in your thesis do you address the contradicting Bakker 2012 result?"

HOW IT WORKS

Four steps. From empty workspace to defense-ready manuscript.

Build the evidence pack

Upload PDFs or pull papers from PubMed with MeSH-filtered search. Each document is chunked, embedded with OpenAI text-embedding-3-small, and assigned to sections.

Structure the manuscript

AI Structure Builder proposes sections with rationale, sub-topics, and MeSH-ready PubMed search terms — adapted to your project type (dissertation, research article, systematic review, grant proposal, and more).

Write with the engines on

Sections generate under your selected EQUATOR guideline with strict Vancouver citations. Continue, ghost-text, selection toolbar — all evidence-grounded.

Run the readiness audit

One click runs Citation Verifier + EQUATOR + Stats + Gaps + Novelty + Reviewer simulation. The score and action items tell you exactly what to fix.

PRICING

Honest pricing. Every tier ships with the same anti-hallucination guarantee.

Annual saves you two months. Need top-up credit packs for a big writing sprint? Available at checkout.

Hobby

Test the waters with the writing & retrieval core.

€0forever

Get started free

30 generations / month
Up to 3 projects
PubMed search + retrieval
Vancouver / APA / AMA export
Plain LLM editor
Community support

RECOMMENDED

Doctoral & Research

For PhD candidates and researchers writing one defensible manuscript.

€29/ month

or €290 / year (save 2 months)

Start 14-day trial

300 generations / month
All Premium Engines (Reviewer Panel, Wave D, Grounding)
Pre-publish Readiness Score
EQUATOR compliance + auto-fix
11 guidelines + DISSERTATION composite
Section-specific libraries · unlimited
Selection toolbar + Ghost-text editor
All 10 project types supported
Priority email support

Research Lab

For investigator teams, methodologists, and Cochrane reviewers.

€79/ seat / month

Contact sales

1,500 generations / seat / month
Everything in Doctoral
Shared project workspaces
Mentor share-links (signed URLs)
Institutional invoicing
Dedicated onboarding

SAFEGUARDS

A writing instrument. Not a medical device.

Research Use Only

InkPhD does not provide clinical decision support. RUO disclaimer rendered on every export.

AI Transparency

Every chapter records which sections were AI-generated, evidence support score, and reviewer approvals.

Citation Verifier

Crossref + NCBI cross-check. Unverified citations are flagged in-line, not hidden.

No global model training

Your library, your retrieval. We never train a shared model on user content — only retrieval-conditioned personalisation.

Your manuscript deserves a rigorous writing partner.

Start with the Hobby tier — no credit card. Upgrade when you run your first Pre-publish Readiness audit and see what's missing.

Open the workspace Read AI transparency report