250M+ papers indexed · Living literature reviews

Enter your topic.
Understand why
science disagrees.

Nexus searches hundreds of millions of papers and returns not just what the literature says — but why the debate looks the way it does. Methodology conflicts. Funding bias. Research gaps. All surfaced automatically.

Live query
Does omega-3 reduce cardiovascular events?
AI Assistant
0.89 confidence · 47 sources
Strong evidence from 3 meta-analyses (2021–2023, n=4,200) supports benefit in secondary prevention. Disagreement stems from primary prevention cohorts where effect sizes are smaller and dose-response relationships are unclear.
[1] Rischitelli GD et al. — Am J Clin Nutr, 2021
[2] Bhatt DL et al. — NEJM, 2019
250M+ articles indexed
doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1811403
OpenAlex PubMed Scopus CrossRef Semantic Scholar Semantic Scholar OpenAlex PubMed Scopus CrossRef Semantic Scholar Semantic Scholar OpenAlex PubMed Scopus CrossRef Semantic Scholar Semantic Scholar OpenAlex PubMed Scopus CrossRef Semantic Scholar Semantic Scholar
See it in action
Nexus — Live Query
Living review — updates automatically
Your question
Does omega-3 supplementation reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk patients?
Consensus state
68% support 19% nuance 13% unclear

Strong evidence from 3 meta-analyses (2021–2023, n=4,200) supports benefit in secondary prevention. Disagreement stems from primary prevention cohorts where effect sizes are smaller and dose-response relationships are unclear.

Why the debate exists
Methodology RCT heterogeneity: dose (1–4g), EPA/DHA ratio, population selection
Bias 43% of positive trials funded by omega-3 manufacturers
Gap No long-term (>5yr) RCTs in primary prevention populations
En chiffres

A research instrument,
not a chatbot.

250M+
Papers in our index. OpenAlex, PubMed, CrossRef — all searchable in seconds.
400+
Active researchers on the platform, from PhD candidates to tenured professors.
12K+
Queries processed by the Nexus AI assistant since launch.
01 Consensus state

Know where the field stands.
Before you build on it.

Every paper contributes to a picture. Nexus reconstructs that picture so you can see the shape of scientific agreement — not just the headline result.

Consensus reached

When multiple independent replications point the same direction, Nexus shows you the strength and breadth of agreement — and which domains are tested.

Active debate

When studies contradict, Nexus doesn't flatten the nuance. It surfaces the disagreement, explains what's driving it, and identifies which papers you can trust more.

Unresolved

Not every question has an answer yet. Nexus distinguishes between genuinely contested science and questions that simply haven't been studied properly.

02 Why scientists disagree

The cause of disagreement
is the most valuable signal.

Every other tool tells you that studies conflict. Nexus explains why — so you can judge the literature yourself and decide where to push the field forward.

Methodology conflict detector

Automatically identifies when studies disagree because of sample size, measurement instruments, population differences, or statistical approaches.

Funding bias flags

Cross-references study funding sources. When industry-funded studies consistently reach different conclusions, you see it — with the numbers.

Geographic & demographic gaps

Surface when evidence comes predominantly from specific populations and what that means for generalizability to your patient, context, or country.

Timeline of consensus shift

Track how scientific consensus has evolved. When did the field flip? What new evidence drove the change? See it mapped over time.

Consensus timeline — omega-3 & CV outcomes
2015 Heterogeneous results — small trials, mixed outcomes
2018 REDUCE-IT shows strong effect — but high-dose only
2023 Consensus: benefit in secondary prevention, limited primary prev.
03 Research gaps

Every gap is a research question.
Find them before your reviewers do.

Nexus doesn't just show you what exists — it identifies what's missing. This is where the real contribution lies: finding the space where your work can move the field forward.

Unexplored intersections

Where two or more well-developed fields meet but haven't been combined? Nexus finds these — they often generate the most novel findings.

Cross-disciplinary "No RCTs combine omega-3 with GLP-1 agonists in diabetic patients"

Population coverage gaps

Shows you which demographics are over- or under-represented in current evidence, and what that means for your study's external validity.

Methodological gaps

Identifies where the dominant study design (e.g., RCTs only) has left qualitative or mixed-methods questions completely unanswered.

Temporal gaps

Surfaced when the last study on a specific sub-question is more than 5 years old — the field may have moved on without a systematic update.

Why build Nexus
now?

Every tool tells you what the literature says. None explain why the debate looks the way it does. That gap is real and unaddressed.

2 million+ papers published annually. Manual literature review can't scale. AI can — if you build the right causal layer on top of the data.

Living review formats are gaining traction (Living Evidence Maps, COVID-NMA). The infrastructure is ready. The synthesis layer is missing.

GDPR-compliant, EU-based. French Ministry of Higher Education just backed OpenAlex — the data infrastructure Nexus runs on. Timing is good.

Market positioning
Scite Shows citation context No why analysis
Elicit Workflow + extraction No debate causality
Consensus Consensus meter No gap detection
Nexus Living + Why + Gaps Full picture

The literature has all the answers.
You just need to know what question to ask.

Nexus turns millions of papers into a structured, honest picture of scientific knowledge — consensus, debate, and gaps — so your research starts where the field actually is, not where you assume it is.

Free to start. No credit card required.