Interrogate details quickly
Move directly to a narrow methodological or results question instead of repeatedly scanning the full paper for the same detail.
Research paper Q&A
Use Paper Q&A to interrogate an uploaded or imported study: ask about eligibility criteria, outcome definitions, effect estimates, missing data, harms, funding, or any other reported detail. SinaPilot grounds the answer in the content available and can say when the information is not reported.
No credit card required. Verify AI-generated outputs against the source.
Focused question
Grounded retrieval
Evidence answer
What it changes
Move directly to a narrow methodological or results question instead of repeatedly scanning the full paper for the same detail.
Ground the response in the selected paper's available content instead of blending it with unsupported general knowledge.
Treat “not reported” as a useful result when the source does not contain enough evidence for an answer.
How it works
SinaPilot keeps the workflow explicit so you can see what went in, what the system produced, and where human verification belongs.
Select an imported paper or upload a readable PDF. The answer can only be as complete as the text available in the workspace.
Name the outcome, population, time point, table, statistical result, or reporting detail you want to verify.
SinaPilot retrieves relevant paper content and answers within that evidence, including source sections, tables, or figures when available.
Verify the wording, denominator, time point, analysis population, and surrounding caveats before reusing the answer.
Structured output
Paper Q&A works best as a sequence of narrow, verifiable questions. Each answer should reduce search time while preserving a path back to the source.
Use cases
Ask how the primary outcome was defined, when it was measured, and whether the reported comparison matches the claim.
Find eligibility criteria, allocation procedures, blinding, missing-data handling, covariates, or analysis populations.
Locate adverse events, attrition, protocol deviations, funding, author conflicts, and statements that may sit outside the abstract.
Human verification
Grounding reduces unsupported answers but does not make them automatically correct. The source document and its reporting limits remain authoritative.
Questions
You can ask about methods, eligibility, outcomes, effect estimates, statistical analyses, missing data, adverse events, limitations, funding, conflicts, and other details present in the available paper content.
No. This workflow is intended to answer from the selected paper's available content. Use Discovery when you need to find additional papers from PubMed or Europe PMC.
The appropriate result is that the information is not reported or cannot be supported by the available content. That absence can itself be important during appraisal.
A readable full-text PDF is recommended for detailed questions. With only metadata or an abstract, answers are limited to that narrower content.
Start with Paper Q&A, keep the source close, and move from isolated papers to a research workflow you can inspect.
Get started free