PARTNERED WITH
HEALTHCARE HUDDLE
OpenEvidence Raises $210M to Power AI Medical Search Tools
OpenEvidence just raised $210 million in Series B funding, bringing its valuation to $3.5 billion.
$3.5 billion—for a company that launched around the same time I started residency in 2023. It’s a huge milestone for a platform that has quickly become a go-to tool for many doctors.
In this article, I’ll break down what OpenEvidence is, how it fits into the growing world of AI-powered medical search tools, and share my take as a physician using this stuff in real time.
The Deets: OpenEvidence
OpenEvidence is a generative AI medical search platform built specifically for physicians. You can ask it any clinical question, and it gives you a fast, evidence-based summary pulled from high-quality, peer-reviewed studies. If your question falls outside the world of medicine, it won’t even try to answer it—which is part of the appeal. It’s focused, not fluffy.
So far in 2025, OpenEvidence has landed two major content deals:
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): A multi-year agreement that gives OpenEvidence access to all published content and multimedia from 1990 onward across nearly all NEJM journals.
JAMA Network: Another multi-year deal that includes full content from JAMA, JAMA Network Open, and 11 specialty journals like JAMA Oncology and JAMA Neurology.
These partnerships matter. NEJM and JAMA are arguably the two most trusted names in medical publishing, so their involvement makes OpenEvidence’s responses that much more credible.
The company’s growth this year has also been wild:
Series A (Feb 2025): $75 million at a $1 billion valuation
Series B (Jul 2025): $210 million at a $3.5 billion valuation
At this pace, they’re likely the fastest-growing AI medical search platform on the market.
The AI Medical Search Platform Space
The AI medical search space is getting crowded, with several companies aiming to become the go-to clinical copilots for physicians.
Doximity Answers: A quick Q&A-style tool built into Doximity that gives you short, citation-backed answers to clinical questions. Great for efficiency.
MediSearch: Pulls from open-access literature to generate evidence-based responses. One unique feature: it flags contradictions across studies so you’re not taking one answer at face value.
Consensus: A broader academic search engine, but it leans on AI to summarize and highlight key takeaways from research papers.
Scite: Gives you long-form responses with something called “Smart Citations,” showing whether papers support or contradict one another. Pretty useful for digging deeper.
Elicit: Uses Semantic Scholar’s full database to pull relevant papers and extract structured information. It’s built more for researchers but can be useful for physicians too.
Glass Health: Built by and for physicians, Glass Health focuses on clinical decision support and diagnostic reasoning.
UpToDate AI: UpToDate has joined the generative AI party, layering LLMs on top of its existing medical content.
Each company is tackling the same core challenge: helping clinicians (and academics) make faster, more informed decisions using AI. But as you’ll see in the next section, OpenEvidence is taking a very different approach to stand out.
Dashevsky’s Dissection
You know, they say the amount of medical knowledge we physicians need to know today—especially for board exams—is exponentially greater than what was required three or four decades ago. But now, with OpenEvidence, that medical knowledge is more accessible and easier to learn and apply.
I also think the phrase “AI co-pilot” gets thrown around way too loosely. Every company wants to be your co-pilot. But OpenEvidence? This actually feels like one.
Throughout my workday, nearly every physician I know (especially the younger crowd) has it open on their screen. It’s become routine: Epic on one screen, OpenEvidence on the other. People use it to look up guidelines, answer niche PICO-style research questions, and even revisit pathophys they haven’t thought about since med school.
And the partnerships with JAMA and NEJM make it even more powerful. OpenEvidence will pull actual tables and graphics from those journals into its responses—so you’re not just reading summaries, you’re seeing the data. It’s incredibly helpful.
This is all to say: OpenEvidence is a true co-pilot.
Here are some next-round features I’d love to see:
Academic publishing support: Tools that assist with writing lit reviews or original research—helping find high-quality studies on a topic, surfacing key citations, or even summarizing the state of the evidence in a structured way.
Organized query history: Group prior searches by system—cardiology, nephrology, infectious disease, etc.—so you can review questions more easily later on.
Board prep integration: A resident-focused feature that ties clinical queries to board-style questions. I could see a partnership with UWorld—ask about GDMT, and OpenEvidence could surface a sample board question on the topic.
Specialty-specific expansions: More partnerships with niche journals (like CHEST or Heart) to build out deeper specialty knowledge. Think: OpenEvidence Pulmonology.
Consensus tracking: For clinical questions that depend on varying recommendations, a consensus meter—like what Consensus is building—would be helpful.
In summary, OpenEvidence has quickly positioned itself as a leading AI-powered medical search tool—backed by major funding, partnerships with top-tier journals, and rapid physician adoption. While the space is growing more competitive, OpenEvidence stands out with its focused, evidence-based approach and real-time clinical utility. If the company continues to evolve with features that support education, research, and deeper specialty integration, it could become a foundational tool in how physicians learn and practice medicine.
🔒 PREMIUM CONTENT THIS WEEK
What you’re missing
While you’re reading this, Huddle+ members are diving deeper into the topics that matter most.
Here’s what they saw this week:
The Group Bargain: How GPOs Shape the Hospital Supply Chain: Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs) are supposed to save hospitals money. But what if they’re doing the opposite? I dive into how these middlemen operate, their controversial incentives, and why some say they’re driving up costs instead of cutting them.
Mid-Year Check-In: 2025 Healthcare Trends and Predictions Update: We’re halfway through the year—how are our healthcare trend predictions holding up? From AI and GLP-1s to policy shifts and payer moves, I break down what’s actually happening across the industry and what to keep an eye on for the rest of 2025.
How Healthcare Really Works: The system is more than just medicine. My new HuddleU course explores the hidden forces shaping healthcare: hospital finances, insurance games, drug pricing, and more. If you’re serious about understanding the business behind the practice—and want to grow your impact—upgrade here.