OpenEvidence
Look up clinical questions against medical literature, guidelines and drug interaction references.
OpenEvidence Funding History
OpenEvidence operates an AI-powered medical evidence search platform for clinicians. Its focus is on helping clinical users find medical information, placing evidence retrieval at the center of the product.
Company Overview
Miami, Florida, US
Official WebsiteOpenEvidence Funding Timeline
Series D
$250M · $12B valuation
OpenEvidence planned to invest in research and development and cover the computing costs of the AI agents that answer clinical questions.
Led by Thrive Capital, DST Global.
Source · cnbc.com ↗Funding Round
US$210 million
OpenEvidence also released DeepConsult, an AI research tool that reviews and cross-references medical studies for clinicians.
Led by GV, Kleiner Perkins. Participation included Sequoia Capital, Coatue, Conviction, Thrive Capital.
Source · prnewswire.com ↗Series A
US$75 million
Alongside the round, OpenEvidence announced a multiyear content agreement with NEJM Group, the publisher of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Led by Sequoia Capital.
Source · maginative.com ↗Series C
US$200 million
OpenEvidence disclosed the financing three months after its $210 million Series B.
Led by GV.
Source · nytimes.com ↗Funding Round
US$250 million
The financing was separate from OpenEvidence’s earlier $250 million round, which had valued the company at $12 billion.
Led by Andreessen Horowitz.
Source · forbes.com ↗
OpenEvidence Founding Team
OpenEvidence brought together an experienced search-company founder and a machine learning researcher. The team applied that combination to finding medical evidence for clinicians.
- Daniel Nadler — CEO. Harvard PhD who previously founded Kensho (acquired by S&P Global).
- Zachary Ziegler — CTO. Harvard machine-learning PhD researcher.
OpenEvidence Products
OpenEvidence Company Development
A Search Workflow for Practicing Clinicians
OpenEvidence built around the question a clinician needs answered during care. Its evidence search brings together medical literature and guidance, giving it a focused workflow distinct from broader efforts to automate the medical visit.
OpenEvidence Competitive Landscape
Clinical Evidence and Medical Notes
OpenEvidence retrieves medical evidence for a clinician’s question. Abridge documents a patient visit from the conversation itself. Both fit into clinical work, but the evidence being processed is different: published research and guidelines in one case, a specific encounter in the other.
FAQ
How does clinical evidence search differ from an AI scribe?
Evidence search helps retrieve and interpret medical literature. A scribe documents an encounter. They address different tasks even when both use language models.
Does a cited medical answer remove the need for clinical judgment?
No. A clinician still needs to assess the evidence, patient context, applicability and limitations of the underlying studies.
Why does literature currency matter in medical question answering?
Guidelines and research findings can change. Publication dates, evidence updates and whether an answer reflects newer results affect its usefulness.
Does OpenEvidence’s funding validate every answer it produces?
No. Financing is separate from evaluating answer quality and clinical suitability. Individual claims need support from the cited evidence.
How should conflicts between medical sources be assessed?
Compare study design, population, outcomes and the strength and date of recommendations rather than relying on the number of citations alone.
What distinguishes literature access from permission to reuse it?
Reading access, text-mining rights and redistribution rights can have different terms. A searchable article is not automatically licensed for every downstream use.