Cento. Join the waitlist
For medical researchers

AI can ruin your paper.
Cento defends every word in it.

Cento is an AI co-writer for medical research. It can only cite papers it actually retrieved — so every reference opens, every claim is graded against its source, and nothing is invented.

Early access for clinician-researchers. Ophthalmology first.

Manuscript Hover to verify

Intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy reduced the risk of moderate vision loss in neovascular AMD over 24 months, though sustained benefit depended on adherence to monthly dosing.

✓ Cited RCT · Strong
Ranibizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Rosenfeld PJ, et al. · N Engl J Med · 2006 · via PubMed
Alignment with your sentence96%
Open the source ↗
◐ Drifted Cohort · Moderate
Long-term anti-VEGF outcomes in routine clinical practice
Holz FG, et al. · Br J Ophthalmol · 2015 · via Europe PMC
Alignment with your sentence58%
Your sentence asserts monthly dosing; the source reports variable, as-needed dosing. Tighten the claim or change the citation.
Open the source ↗
Grounded in the open literature:
PubMed·OpenAlex·Semantic Scholar·Europe PMC
The problem

AI will invent a citation that looks perfect — and isn't there.

A language model predicts the next plausible token. A reference is just more tokens to predict — so it will produce a flawlessly formatted author list, journal, year, and DOI for a paper that was never written. In most fields that's an embarrassment. In medicine, a single fabricated citation is a retraction risk.

"You can't stand behind a citation you can't open."

The citation-truth contract

Fabrication isn't caught after the fact. It's impossible by design.

1

Retrieve

Searches PubMed, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar and Europe PMC, and builds a candidate set of real, retrieved sources before a single word is written.

2

Constrain

The model writes prose plus citation slots as structured data. It cannot name a paper — only reference a retrieved candidate by ID.

3

Validate

The backend checks every citation against the candidate set. No match means the claim is marked [UNCITED] — never invented.

4

Watch for drift

As you edit, Cento re-scores each claim against its source. Move away from the evidence and it flags the claim as Drifted.

The editor

Your manuscript and its evidence, side by side.

discussion.md — Section 4: Discussion

In treatment-naïve eyes, early intervention is associated with better visual acuity at one year. Switching agents after non-response further improves outcomes in most patients. The mechanism of late recurrence remains incompletely characterised[UNCITED].

✓ Cited ◐ Drifted ○ Unsupported
Inspector
✓ Cited Meta-analysis · Strong
Timing of anti-VEGF initiation and 12-month acuity: a meta-analysis
Chen K, et al. · Ophthalmology · 2019 · via Semantic Scholar
Alignment93%
Open the source ↗
◐ Drifted Case series · Weak
Outcomes after intravitreal agent switch: a single-centre series
Okada M, et al. · Retina · 2021 · via OpenAlex
Alignment49%
Your sentence says "most patients"; this single-centre series reports improvement in a minority. The evidence doesn't carry the claim.
Open the source ↗
The wedge

Defend every word

Every reference resolves to a paper you can open. When a reviewer questions a claim, you don't reach for an explanation — you reach for the source.

Macular thickness predicted treatment response5 across both cohorts6.

✓ Cited2 sources · both open
✓ CitedAligned with source
◐ DriftedClaim moved during revision
○ UnsupportedNo source bound yet

Catch citation drift before a reviewer does

Manuscripts rot during revision: you sharpen a sentence and quietly outrun its source. Cento re-scores each claim as you edit, so drift surfaces while it's still yours to fix.

Spend your time on the science, not the citations

Retrieval, formatting, and verification happen as you write. You stay in the argument; the reference apparatus keeps itself honest underneath.

Reference list, formatted to journal style
DOIs resolved and de-duplicated
Audit appendix generated on export
Shared manuscript
SC KC MO
3 co-authors · editing now
discussion.md — Section 4 ✓ Cited

One draft, one reference list — every citation stays verified as it changes hands.

Write the paper together, in one place

Co-authors draft, cite, and revise in the same manuscript — no emailed versions, no reconciling reference lists by hand. Everyone works from one source of truth, and every citation stays verified no matter whose turn it is to write.

Capabilities

Built for the way medical papers are actually written.

✓ Cited

Verifiable citations

Every reference binds to a paper Cento actually retrieved. If it can't bind, it isn't cited — it's flagged. No exceptions, no hallucinated DOIs.

Drift detection

Claims re-scored against their source on every edit.

RCTCOHORT

Evidence grading

Level-of-evidence on every source, so you can weigh it.

IMRaD

IMRaD structure

Drafts that already know what a methods section is for.

Figures & tables

Captioned, numbered, and cross-referenced in text.

.docx

Export

Word document plus an audit appendix of every source.

The proof

Every citation is one click from its source.

Real

The paper exists and was retrieved from the open literature. Open it and read it yourself.

Graded

Its level of evidence is shown alongside it, so a case report never poses as a trial.

Checked

Your sentence is scored against the source, and drift is flagged the moment it appears.

We don't put a single accuracy number on this page. The real test is the one you run yourself — and as clinician users come on board, their published work, not our marketing, will be the proof.

Bringing Cento to your team?

Shared libraries, team controls, and verification at the point of submission — for departments and journals.

Cento for institutions →

Write papers you can defend.

Join the early-access waitlist. Built for clinician-researchers — starting in ophthalmology.

Join the waitlist

No spam. We're honest about the stage — this is early access.