Browse

Consensus

Updated October 16, 2026

Overview / Description

Consensus searches scientific research papers and synthesizes AI-powered summaries of what the evidence says about specific questions. Ask "does caffeine improve athletic performance?" and get a consensus score based on relevant study findings, with citations to the actual papers.

Researchers, medical professionals, students, and evidence-seeking journalists use Consensus to quickly understand the state of scientific evidence on a topic without reading through dozens of papers. The evidence-grounded approach is more reliable for scientific questions than general-purpose AI assistants that generate confident-sounding summaries without citing sources.

Coverage is strong for published, peer-reviewed research. Very recent papers, preprints, and niche fields with limited literature may return fewer results. Consensus summarizes what studies say — it doesn't evaluate methodology quality or distinguish between high-powered RCTs and small observational studies. Users making important decisions should verify findings with the original papers.

Used For

Used by researchers, medical professionals, students, and journalists to quickly understand the state of scientific evidence on a question with cited paper sources.

Pricing

Free

$0/month

A limited number of searches and core features at no cost.

View pricing

Premium

Free

Unlimited searches and advanced analysis features — see site for current pricing.

View pricing

Enterprise / Teams

Free

Team seats and institutional access — contact for pricing.

View pricing

Pros & Cons

Pros

• Searches peer-reviewed research and synthesizes what the evidence says • Generates a consensus view with citations to the actual papers • Evidence-grounded answers are more reliable than general AI for science questions • Saves reading through dozens of papers manually • Useful across medicine, nutrition, psychology, and more

Cons

• Coverage is weaker for very recent papers, preprints, and niche fields • Summarizes findings but does not evaluate methodology quality • Does not distinguish high-powered RCTs from small observational studies • Important decisions still require checking the original papers

Questions & Answers

Alternatives

Elicit, Scholarcy, Semantic Scholar, Scite

Reviews & Ratings

—

0 reviews

5
0%
4
0%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%

Sign in to rate and review Consensus.

Sign in to review

No reviews yet. Be the first to review Consensus!

Try Consensus free