Skip to main content
Paste a slide headline, footnote, or written claim and attach the source study. Anara checks whether the wording accurately reflects the study methodology and findings, flags anything that overstates the evidence, and suggests revised language. For medical writers and clinical professionals who need every claim to survive regulatory review.

​
1. Describe the task

The headline has been written and rewritten four times. The phrasing has drifted from the underlying study methodology in ways that are hard to see without going back to the source. MLR review will catch it. Better to catch it first. Anara reads the claim and the source study together and assesses whether the wording is accurate and defensible given what the study reports. It checks the methodology, the primary and secondary endpoints, and the statistical framing, then tells you where the language holds and where it does not. Here a medical communications consultant is developing a cardiovascular disease slide program for a pharmaceutical client and needs to verify whether a projection model headline accurately reflects a NHANES-based modeling methodology before the slides go into MLR review. 
I need to verify whether this slide headline is accurate given the underlying study. Attached: the source paper.

Headline: "Comprehensive Risk Factor Control, Led by Intensive LDL-C Lowering, Can Substantially Reduce Projected Recurrent ASCVD Events"

Please assess: Is this headline accurate given the study's methodology and findings? Does it overstate or understate the results? Is "projected" the right framing for a modeling study versus an RCT outcome? Suggest one or two alternative phrasings if the current version has accuracy concerns.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • The claim, headline, or footnote you want to verify, pasted directly into the chat.
  • The source study as a PDF upload or from your library.
Optional context
  • The regulatory context: MLR review, FDA submission, payer dossier, advisory board. Anara calibrates the precision of its assessment to the standard you need to meet.
  • A description of the data visualization the headline accompanies. For projection model outputs, knowing what the chart shows helps Anara assess whether the headline accurately reflects what the visual communicates.

​
3. What Anara creates

An accuracy assessment with a verdict (accurate, overstated, understated, or potentially misleading), the specific passage from the study that grounds it, and revised phrasing where the original does not hold up. Every claim that clears the assessment has a traceable basis in the source. Every claim that does not gets corrected before a reviewer sees it.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Check the footnote attribution

When the headline is accurate but the footnote methodology needs verification. 
The footnote reads: "Projections derived by applying age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific prevalence estimates from NHANES 2013-2018 to a cardiovascular risk reduction model." Check this attribution against the paper's methods section. Is the modeling approach described correctly? Are the NHANES years accurate?

​
Verify the statistical framing

When you want to confirm that the specific numbers in the body copy match the reported results. 
The slide body copy states that risk factor control could reduce recurrent ASCVD events by 34% in the high-risk population. Check this figure against the paper's Table 3 results. Does the percentage match? Is "high-risk population" the correct descriptor for the subgroup analyzed?

​
Check a full set of claims across a slide deck

When the accuracy review needs to extend beyond a single headline. 
I have attached the full slide deck and the three source studies it references. For each slide that makes a quantitative clinical claim, check the claim against the study it cites. Flag anything that does not match and anything where the citation is missing. Return your findings as a list organized by slide number.

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

Paste the claim verbatim. The accuracy check depends on the exact wording, not a paraphrase of it. Asking “is this generally right” produces a softer assessment than asking “is the word ‘projected’ accurate for a modeling study?” Naming the regulatory context (MLR, FDA advisory committee, payer value dossier) tells Anara the precision standard to apply.

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara reads the source study you upload. It does not have access to internal briefing documents, unpublished data, or the specific guidance your MLR team applies. If Anara’s assessment conflicts with a prior internal red line, trust the prior guidance. For claims where the methodology is unusual or multiple statistical framings are defensible, bring the assessment to your clinical or statistical team.

​
What to do with the output next

Fix every flagged claim before submitting to review. Where Anara suggests revised phrasing, evaluate the suggestions against the voice requirements for the specific deliverable: an advisory board slide sounds different from a payer value dossier. Run the revised version through the same check to confirm the new wording is accurate before the file moves forward. For high-volume slide programs, use the full-deck follow-up prompt to run a systematic accuracy sweep rather than checking claims one at a time.