SciTrue
How SciTrue works

Evidence you can see

SciTrue checks scientific claims and scientific texts against real papers. Every piece of evidence is analyzed and weighed against your input in seconds, and traces back to a source you can verify, analyze, and chat with.

01 · Transparent attribution

Every argument traced to real evidence

Ask a question or input a claim, and SciTrue retrieves real studies and shows, for each one, how strongly it supports your claim: the study type (often a critical variable for the field), the journal's quality, the exact paragraph it relied on with the key sentence highlighted, and the validity conditions that say when the finding holds and when it doesn't.

Evidence strengthStrong
Study type: Meta-analysisVery High: Q1 journal✓ Peer-reviewed
Coffee consumption and health: umbrella review of meta-analyses
Exact paragraph
Across multiple outcomes, the umbrella review found that moderate coffee intake was associated with a significantly lower risk of type 2 diabetes in a dose-response manner, with the largest benefit at three to four cups per day.
Validity conditions
  • Holds for moderate intake (three to four cups per day).
  • Observational cohorts, so an association, not proven cause.
02 · Verify your text

Catch fake citations and overclaims, and replace them with real ones

Did you ask a question to AI and get a confident answer? Even the best models can invent fake evidence and citations. SciTrue resolves each citation to the real paper and checks whether it backs the claim, flagging fabricated references, misattributions, and overclaims. When a citation is fake or off-target, it finds real papers on the claim so you can swap them in. Hover any highlight for the source quote and the reasoning.

Coffee is one of the most studied beverages in the world. Large reviews have found that moderate coffee intake is associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (Ding et al., 2014). Looking at long-term data, some writers conclude that the more coffee you drink, the longer you live (Poole et al., 2017). Other posts get the direction wrong, warning that drinking coffee regularly raises your long-term blood pressure (Xie et al., 2018). A few even claim that drinking coffee significantly raises your risk of cancer (Harvard Health, 2023). One blog even cites the diabetes study for the idea that coffee improves athletic endurance (Ding et al., 2014), and adds that coffee protects long-term brain health (Bennett, 2021).

SupportedPartially supportedOverstatedContradictedNot addressedCitation not foundhover a highlight →
03 · Ask the paper

Question any source, grounded in its text

Did an argument catch your interest, or do you want to know more detail about how and why a study was actually done? Open the paper and ask. Answers come only from that article's own text, with the supporting passage highlighted, so you are never handed an ungrounded guess.

💬 Ask this paper
💬 Asking: Coffee consumption and health (BMJ, 2017)
How did they measure the link?
It pools observational cohorts and reports a dose-response association with lower risk, strongest at three to four cups a day. Being observational, it shows association, not proven cause.
From the paper
We found that coffee consumption was associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes in a dose-response manner.
04 · Browser extension

Check the science as you browse

SciTrue rides along while you watch a science video on YouTube or read the news. It surfaces the claims worth checking and verifies them against the research, right there on the page. Or highlight any claim on any page to check it yourself. It brings both claim and text verification right to where you work.

🔊4:12 / 12:04
Can psychedelics rewire the brain?
PowerfulJRCEODiary
1.2M views · 3 days ago
Subscribe
SSciTrue flagged a claim in this video
⚠ Overstated“…psilocybin permanently cures depression…” — short-term benefit in trials, not a cure.
The Daily Science
Health · Tuesday

One glass, one workout? The wine study everyone misread

By A. Reporter

The story spread fast online, with headlines insisting that a glass of red wine equals an hour at the gym, sending readers to the cellar instead of the treadmill.

But the researchers behind the original paper say that is not what they found at all…

SYou highlighted a claim
✗ ContradictedThe cited study never claimed this.

See it on your own claim

Start with a question or a claim, or paste a paragraph you want to fact-check. It is free to try.