Model foundation
Real-world clinical histories help the model learn medical language, presentations and reasoning patterns across time.
Volume does not prove representative coverage of every population, language, setting or specialty.
Current testing scope
This page lists only the areas currently represented in testing. Diagnify’s broad clinical training corpus helps adapt the model, but it does not by itself establish specialty performance, safety or authorisation.
Two different questions
Diagnify currently describes its internal fine-tuning corpus as more than 50 million historical consultation records spanning 50 years, with human feedback during development. The count remains company-supplied pending the full data statement; specialty readiness requires separate evidence.
Real-world clinical histories help the model learn medical language, presentations and reasoning patterns across time.
Volume does not prove representative coverage of every population, language, setting or specialty.
Each intended task needs relevant cases, reference standards, subgroup analysis, human-factors testing and monitoring in the target workflow.
Separate evidence and guideline retrieval must also reflect the applicable jurisdiction and current practice.
Listed areas
Each area presents different reasoning, evidence and safety challenges. Results in one context must not be assumed to transfer to another.
Status: currently in testing.
The evaluation focus is structured support for undifferentiated presentations: problem representation, red-flag review, differential construction and questions that may clarify the next clinical step.
Status: currently in testing.
The evaluation focus is structured organisation of developmental and behavioural information, including context, functional impact, alternative explanations and questions that require clinician verification.
Readiness criteria
A specialty advances only when the data, evidence, evaluation and workflow all fit its intended use.
Confirm representative cases, reference standards, exclusions and clinically important subgroups.
Use qualified reviewers, documented correction criteria and adjudication for difficult or disputed cases.
Ground outputs in versioned guidelines that fit the population, jurisdiction and clinical setting.
Measure meaningful errors, workflow effects, human factors, drift and monitoring requirements.
Use during evaluation
Check that the case and task fall within the approved local evaluation scope.
Compare suggestions with the history, examination, authoritative evidence and local guidance.
Capture omissions, irrelevant suggestions, bias concerns and unsafe outputs for evaluation.
The clinician remains responsible for assessment, escalation, investigation and management.
Two offerings, one evidence standard
Transparent scope
New areas will be listed only when there is a genuine evaluation scope to describe.