Already done
You discover months later that a near-identical review or cohort study already exists.
Research Idea Validity Reports
Know if your research idea is worth pursuing before you waste months on it.
Validly uses specially curated AI model that instantly checks your idea against a strict rubric, FINER criteria, redundancy signals, published studies, protocols in progress, and feasibility constraints, then generates a private report.
One free scan per month. No public submissions. No fabricated citations. No publication guarantees.
This gap is real
High redundancy risk
The real failure point
Most bad research ideas do not fail at writing. They fail at selection.
Too broad to publish
The question sounds interesting but has no sharp population, comparator, or outcome.
Fake gap
The literature gap exists only because the framing is weak or the search was incomplete.
Validity checks
A mini peer-review before the project begins.
Novelty
Not just whether the title exists, but whether the framing is meaningfully different.
Redundancy
Flags direct duplicates, adjacent evidence, and saturated review questions.
Feasibility
Checks timeline, data access, team skills, sample size, and execution risk.
Methodology
Tests whether the design can actually answer the question being asked.
Clinical value
Separates meaningful decisions from low-impact descriptive projects.
Better angles
Turns weak ideas into sharper, safer, or faster-publishing alternatives.
First beta offer
Research Idea Validity Report.
The first productized report checks whether a research idea is already saturated, too broad, poorly framed, or still defensible with a sharper question and better methods.
Best for
- Medical students choosing review topics
- Residents screening project ideas
- Research clubs ranking multiple ideas
- Supervisors triaging student proposals
Not for
- Guaranteed publication predictions
- Fake novelty or invented citations
- Full systematic review replacement
- Clinical, legal, ethics, or IRB advice
Deliverable
- 5-8 page PDF-style report
- Similar-paper table and redundancy verdict
- Real vs fake gap analysis
- Improved title, PICO, and search strategy
Workflow
From rough idea to decision-ready report.
Sign in, then submit
Create an account first so your monthly free scan, credits, and referral rewards can be counted.
The AI reconstructs the question
Your rough idea becomes a structured PICO, PECO, or study-design map that can be scored consistently.
Evidence and protocols are checked
PubMed, Europe PMC, OpenAlex, optional Scholar provider, and PROSPERO-style checks look for published studies, overlap, meta-analyses, trials, and in-progress protocols.
Download the instant report
The report appears immediately in your tab. Download the PDF before closing. If encrypted history is enabled, only your signed-in account can reopen saved reports.
Report preview
Objective AI scoring, not vague encouragement.
Every report applies detailed Validly criteria, FINER, red-flag overrides, redundancy analysis, meta-analysis update logic, feasibility, ethics, and publication positioning.
See sample reportExecutive verdict
FINER snapshot
Override/red flag checks
Similar literature table
Published meta-analysis update check
PROSPERO in-progress protocol check
True gaps vs fake gaps
Fatal flaws
Sample report library
Check Sample Reports
SGLT2 inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension
Best reframed as a preclinical translational synthesis focused on RV remodeling outcomes.
Obesity and biologic response in rheumatoid arthritis
Likely needs a narrower population, biologic class, and outcome window to avoid redundancy.
AI detection of diabetic retinopathy
Broad review is saturated, but subgroup, dataset-bias, or deployment setting angles may remain useful.
Best first use
Useful before committing to any early research idea.
Many student-led and junior research projects fail because the question is already saturated, too broad, not answerable, or not worth the time. Validly flags those risks early and suggests sharper alternatives.
Medical students
Residents
Graduate students
Research clubs
Supervisors
Junior academic teams
Beta pricing
Start free. Upgrade only if the idea is worth exploring.
Beta payments use PayPal first. Credits are applied after the PayPal receipt is matched to your signed-in Validly account; automation will be added after the beta payment flow is proven.
Trust posture
Built for honest research critique.
No fabricated citations
No publication guarantees
Not a substitute for supervisor review
Clear uncertainty notes
Source-grounded similar-paper table
Private processing by default
No owner-visible idea inbox
Check your idea before the project starts.
Validate my research ideaValidly is a research planning tool. It does not replace a full literature search, institutional review, statistical consultation, supervisor input, or journal editorial judgment.
Submit idea
Validate your research idea instantly
Sign in first, then use one free monthly scan or credits. Your report is generated immediately; download the PDF before closing. Live deployments can also save an encrypted copy that only your account can reopen.
Account required
Sign up to validate an idea.
Create an account first. Accounts unlock one free scan per month, credit balance, referral credits, and encrypted report history when enabled.
Password reset
Create a new password.
Use the reset link sent by email to create a new account password.
Your workspace
Reports, credits, and referrals.
Download PDFs immediately. If encrypted history is enabled, saved reports can be reopened from your account; the owner does not receive a readable idea inbox.
Privacy controls
Export account metadata and encrypted report history, or delete the account. Deletion removes the account and saved report history, then anonymizes operational logs needed for abuse prevention and accounting.
Tell a friend
Create your unique referral ID.
Share your code. For every new person who signs up with it, your account gains one credit, up to 10 referral credits. Referral activity syncs to the private account tracker.
Sign in to generate a code
Ask a question
Need help before validating?
Send a support or research-planning question. Email delivery activates when `CONTACT_EMAIL` and a mail provider key are configured.
Report generation
Your report is being generated.
Validly is running literature retrieval, protocol checks, the final rubric, FINER, and red-flag logic. Your report will appear in this tab session when complete.
- Submission ID
- VLD-PENDING
- Status
- Processing instantly
- Download note
- Download the PDF before closing this tab. Encrypted account history may also be available on the dashboard.
- Privacy note
- No owner-visible idea inbox or account tracker stores readable submissions.
Report authenticity
Verify a Validly report.
Scan the QR code on a report or paste its verification token. This confirms the report was generated by this Validly deployment without exposing the submitted research idea.
Sample PDF report
SGLT2 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in preclinical animal models
This fictional sample shows the structure and level of critique a Validly report aims to provide. It does not cite or invent specific papers.
VALIDLY TM
Confidential research planning report
Research Idea Validity Report
SGLT2 inhibitors for pulmonary hypertension in preclinical animal models
Novelty, redundancy, feasibility, methodological critique, and better project angles.
Final verdict
Promising but risky - reframe first
Total score
68/100
Redundancy risk
Moderate-high
Prepared for early-stage research planning. This sample uses placeholder similar-literature rows and does not invent real citations.
Executive Verdict
One-line decision
Do not pursue this as a broad clinical SGLT2/pulmonary hypertension review. Reframe it toward preclinical right ventricular remodeling and pulmonary vascular endpoints, and verify whether enough new input studies exist to justify an update.
The idea is potentially viable if framed as a preclinical translational synthesis focused on right ventricular remodeling and pulmonary vascular endpoints. Avoid a broad clinical SGLT2/pulmonary hypertension review unless updated searches confirm a gap.
Methodological answerability16/22
Testable, but outcome definitions need tightening.
Novelty and redundancy13/22
Adjacent literature is crowded; update justification is uncertain.
Problem significance13/16
Meaningful translational question.
Feasibility/data/ethics11/15
Feasible as literature-only review if enough studies exist.
Contribution clarity8/12
Added value depends on a narrow preclinical angle.
Publication positioning5/8
Better as structured/preclinical review than broad meta-analysis.
Downstream impact and timing: 2/5
The idea may guide future translational work, but timing depends on whether at least 3 eligible input studies and enough new data are available.
FINER Snapshot
| FINER domain | Status | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Feasible | Moderate | Likely feasible if eligible preclinical studies and extractable RV outcomes exist. |
| Interesting | Strong | RV remodeling in pulmonary hypertension is clinically and mechanistically meaningful. |
| Novel | Moderate | Novelty depends on avoiding broad SGLT2/PH overlap and focusing on a defensible endpoint. |
| Ethical | Strong | Literature-only review is low risk, but claims must not become clinical advice. |
| Relevant | Moderate | Relevant to translational cardiopulmonary research if scoped tightly. |
Override and Red Flag Checks
- No direct duplicate confirmed in this sample, but redundancy risk is not low.
- Broad clinical framing would trigger a high-redundancy warning.
- Meta-analysis should not proceed unless at least 3 eligible input studies are confirmed.
- Publication positioning should stay modest unless update justification is strong.
Idea Reconstruction
| Clean title | Effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on right ventricular remodeling in animal models of pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review. |
|---|---|
| Research question | Among experimental models of pulmonary hypertension, do SGLT2 inhibitors improve right ventricular remodeling, pulmonary vascular remodeling, and hemodynamic outcomes compared with controls? |
| Population | Animal models of pulmonary hypertension. |
| Intervention | SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin and dapagliflozin where relevant. |
| Comparator | Vehicle, placebo, untreated control, or standard experimental control. |
| Primary outcome | Right ventricular remodeling and function. |
| Target article type | Preclinical systematic review or structured translational review. |
Similar Literature Snapshot
Production reports must only cite retrieved real papers with links, PMIDs, DOIs, or database IDs where available.
| Paper | DOI/PMID | Year | Design | Main overlap | Threat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recent review on metabolic therapies in pulmonary vascular disease | Shown when retrieved | Recent | Review | Broad disease/intervention overlap | Moderate |
| Experimental SGLT2 inhibition in pulmonary vascular remodeling | Shown when retrieved | Recent | Animal study | Close mechanistic overlap | High |
| Cardiometabolic therapy and right ventricular function | Shown when retrieved | Recent | Review | Adjacent evidence | Low |
Interpretation
The broad disease/intervention space is no longer empty. The defensible contribution is likely the narrower RV remodeling and pulmonary vascular endpoint synthesis.
Meta-analysis Validity Check
| Existing published meta-analysis | Needs confirmation by live retrieval. Broad reviews appear plausible. |
|---|---|
| Latest review date | Use retrieved records to identify the most recent directly overlapping review. |
| Update requirement | Estimate new trials/studies and patients/animals after the latest review. |
| Minimum input studies | At least 3 eligible studies should be confirmed before a meta-analysis claim. |
| PROSPERO | Check for registered or in-progress protocols before starting. |
Real Gaps vs Weak Gaps
True possible gaps
- Right ventricular remodeling endpoints across experimental PH models.
- Mechanistic distinction between pulmonary vascular and cardiac effects.
- Dose-response and timing differences in preclinical models.
Fake or weak gaps
- "No recent review" without proving the latest review is outdated.
- Combining animal and clinical studies under one broad conclusion.
- Using pulmonary hypertension as one undifferentiated disease category.
Fatal Flaws To Fix
| Flaw | Severity | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Broad disease framing | High | Predefine accepted PH models and exclude incompatible clinical claims. |
| Mixed evidence base | Moderate | Separate preclinical and clinical conclusions. |
| Unclear outcome | Moderate | Specify RV remodeling metrics before screening. |
Better Versions of the Idea
Safer version
Effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on right ventricular remodeling in animal models of pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review.
Stronger version
Mechanistic effects of SGLT2 inhibition on pulmonary vascular remodeling and RV-pulmonary arterial coupling in experimental pulmonary hypertension.
Fast-publication version
Emerging preclinical evidence for SGLT2 inhibitors in pulmonary hypertension: a structured review.
Suggested Search Strategy
("SGLT2" OR "sodium-glucose cotransporter 2" OR empagliflozin OR dapagliflozin)
AND ("pulmonary hypertension" OR "pulmonary arterial hypertension")
AND ("right ventricular remodeling" OR "pulmonary vascular remodeling" OR preclinical OR animal)
Final recommendation
Pursue after modification. Start with a narrow preclinical protocol, verify recent reviews, and ask the supervisor whether animal-only synthesis is acceptable for the target journal level.
Want this for your idea?
Validate my ideaFAQ
Quick answers before you submit.
Internal MVP
Session diagnostics
This view shows browser-session reports for testing and admin CSV exports. It is not an owner-visible idea inbox.
Live tracker exports
Enter your admin token once, then download accounts, referrals, or access overrides as CSV files that open directly in Excel.
| ID | Title | Specialty | Type | Status | Package | Created |
|---|
Disclaimer
Validly is preliminary research planning support.
Validly reports are intended for early-stage research idea evaluation. The literature snapshot is based on selected public databases and automated or manual retrieval methods and may not be exhaustive.
Scores and recommendations are heuristic and should be interpreted as decision support, not definitive judgments. Validly does not guarantee novelty, acceptance, publication, funding, ethical approval, or scientific validity.
Users are responsible for verifying findings through complete literature searches, supervisor consultation, institutional processes, statistical review, ethics/IRB review, and appropriate methodological review. Validly is not medical, legal, ethical, statistical, or journal editorial advice.
Important boundaries
- Validly is not a substitute for a full systematic search, librarian search strategy, statistician review, supervisor approval, IRB/ethics review, or journal editorial judgment.
- Database coverage can be incomplete, delayed, unavailable, or affected by API/provider limits.
- AI-generated reasoning can be wrong and must be checked before decisions are made.
- Do not submit patient-identifiable, confidential, or institution-restricted information unless you have authority to do so.
Privacy
Submitted ideas are treated as private.
We do not display user-submitted research ideas publicly. Users should not submit patient-identifiable information, confidential institutional data, or sensitive unpublished data unless they have authority to do so.
Account signups and referral events update private account metadata. Research ideas are not written to the account/referral tracker or shown in an owner inbox.
When encrypted report history is enabled, reports are stored in encrypted form so signed-in users can reopen them. Users can delete saved reports from the dashboard. Production hosting, AI providers, and literature APIs may still process request data transiently.
Account controls
Signed-in users can export account metadata, credit/referral records, verification records, AI call metadata, and decryptable saved report history from the dashboard. Signed-in users can also delete the account, which deletes account rows and saved report history, then anonymizes operational logs that may be needed for abuse prevention, accounting, or reliability.
Processing notice
Report generation may send the submitted research idea to AI and literature providers configured for the deployment. Users should treat Validly as a planning aid and avoid submitting sensitive personal or patient data.
Terms
Terms of Use draft.
By using Validly, you agree to use it only for lawful research-planning purposes and to independently verify all report outputs before acting on them.
User responsibilities
- You are responsible for the accuracy, lawfulness, and confidentiality of information you submit.
- You must not submit patient-identifiable information, protected health information, private institutional data, or data you are not authorized to process.
- You must not use Validly to fabricate citations, misrepresent novelty, bypass ethics review, or generate misleading academic claims.
- You must verify literature, methods, statistics, ethics, and journal suitability independently.
Service limits
Validly may rate-limit, suspend, or block usage that appears abusive, automated, fraudulent, or harmful. Features, pricing, credits, providers, and report formats may change while the product is in beta.
Refunds
Refund policy draft.
Beta payments may be collected through PayPal payment links. Credits are granted after a receipt is matched to the signed-in Validly account. Automated payment confirmation will be added later.
During PayPal beta
- Users should pay with the same email used for the Validly account or forward the receipt to support.
- Credits are manually added after receipt review, so payment confirmation may not be instant.
- Failed report generation should automatically restore credits when the server records a generation failure.
- Refund requests should be reviewed against usage history, report delivery status, and abuse signals.
- Validly cannot guarantee publication, novelty, supervisor approval, or a specific score, so disagreement with a recommendation is not automatically a technical failure.
Acceptable use
Use Validly responsibly.
Validly is for early research planning. It should not be used to process sensitive personal data, generate deceptive academic work, or automate abusive traffic.
Not allowed
- Submitting patient-identifiable, confidential, stolen, restricted, or unauthorized data.
- Using the service to fabricate citations, fake novelty, or mislead supervisors, journals, funders, or institutions.
- Automated scraping, credential stuffing, referral abuse, spam, or attempts to bypass credits/rate limits.
- Using outputs as medical, legal, ethical, statistical, or publication advice without qualified review.