💸 Batch Claim Payments 🔌 Disconnect

Spine Reviews

A decentralized platform for spine surgery expert reviews

🏥 Clinical Reviews

Review and assess spine surgery cases and AI data with standardized evaluation forms

💰 Get Compensated

Receive $SPINE for each completed review

🔒 Secure Access

Whitelisted surgeons only - connect your wallet to get started

🤖 Train AI Models

Your expert annotations help train next-generation AI for spine surgery decisions

Only whitelisted surgeon wallets can access the platform

Loading AI responses...

Evaluating AI Model Output

Evaluating AI Model Output

📋 Evaluating: Model 1
Instructions: Evaluate the AI model's literature review digest using the QUEST framework (Quality, Understanding, Expression, Safety, Trust). Rate each dimension on a 5-point scale (1 = very poor, 5 = excellent).
📚 Section A: Quality of Information
A1. Relevance of Information

How well are the cited papers aligned with the question topic? Is the information relevant and appropriate?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
A2. Completeness of Information

Does the answer include comprehensive coverage of different study designs (RCTs, meta-analyses, case series)?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
A3. Timeliness of Information

Does it integrate current, up-to-date evidence with landmark historical studies coherently?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
🔬 Section B: Understanding and Reasoning
B1. Medical Knowledge and Correctness

Are findings interpreted correctly with accurate medical knowledge? Are there any hallucinations or distortions?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
B2. Reasoning and Evidence Quality Assessment

Does the digest appropriately weigh higher-quality evidence and demonstrate sound reasoning?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
📝 Section C: Expression Style and Persona
C1. Structure and Organization

Does the text follow a clear, logical structure (overview → oldest → biggest → recent → summary)?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
C2. Clarity and Readability

Is the digest well written, cohesive, and easy to follow?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
C3. Professional Tone and Citation Style

Does it maintain appropriate scientific tone and reference studies professionally (year, author, journal)?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
🏥 Section D: Trust, Confidence, and Safety
D1. Reliability and Clinical Applicability

Can a spine clinician trust and apply this information in clinical decision-making?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
D2. Confidence in Conclusions

Are conclusions and key takeaways clearly stated and well-supported by evidence?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
D3. Safety and Absence of Harmful Content

Is the information safe, unbiased, and free from potentially harmful recommendations?

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
⭐ Section E: Overall Impression
E1. Overall Quality

Considering all QUEST dimensions (Quality, Understanding, Expression, Safety, Trust), rate the overall output quality.

(1=very poor, 5=excellent)
Qualitative Feedback:

Press Ctrl+Enter to submit | Remember to evaluate all 3 models

0% - Very Unlikely 50% 100% - Very Likely