GI Signals is not an alert and not a chatbot. It is a short, scored, physician-vetted list, and it shows the math. Here is exactly how a paper gets from the literature to a card.
Every week we pull new research across 25+ leading gastroenterology, hepatology, and general-medicine journals, the outlets a practicing GI actually needs to keep up with.
Most of what publishes is not decision-relevant. First we drop what is not a study at all: letters, editorials, comments, corrections and retraction notices, and case reports. A correction carries its original paper's title and design, so it reads like the study it corrects unless it is caught deliberately. Then we drop thin observational work and papers that do not bear on care, so the list stays short. Reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines stay: they carry no primary data, but they are how a standard actually changes.
Each surviving paper is scored on four things: study rigor, journal standing, novelty, and practice relevance. Every card opens to show where the paper lands on each axis, Strong to Limited, against the rubric below.
Journal standing uses impact factors from a single hard-coded table (Journal Citation Reports 2026 release (2025 Journal Impact Factor), as of 2026-07-18), refreshed on a fixed cadence rather than fetched per paper, so the same journal always scores the same way within an issue. Hover any IF on a card to see its source.
New is judged against current. Each paper is matched to the guideline that governs its clinical question, drawn from a maintained reference set of current standards, each with its source society and the date it was last reviewed. The paper is then placed by how it moves that standard: reinforces it, refines it, changes it, or is not yet actionable. Every card quotes the standard it was measured against, with a link to the source, so the verdict is something you can check and argue with rather than take on trust. A finding earns attention only when it moves the standard, not because it is recent.
A gastroenterologist reads the draft card, checks it against the evidence and the standard of care, and stands behind it. Nothing publishes until Simon Mathews, MD has reviewed it.
Every card's score opens to show where the paper lands on each of the four axes. Each axis is rated on its own, so you can compare quality directly. Here is what the levels mean.
A keyword alert gives you everything and sorts none of it. A general chatbot will summarize a paper you already found, with no accountability for whether it is right or whether it matters.
GI Signals does the opposite: a short, ranked, scored list; each card anchored to the standard of care; each one shaped by a named physician's editorial judgment, not an anonymous model; and the scoring shown so you can weigh it for yourself. That is the difference between a feed and a signal.