TENSOR Med turns each patient's encounters, labs, treatments and outcome scores into one continuously updated report, with a reasoned, evidence-grounded next step that reflects everything in their record and refreshes as new results and letters arrive.
| 12 Feb | ASDAS-CRP | 3.4 |
| 08 Nov | ASDAS-CRP | 3.2 |
| 04 Nov | Naproxen 500 mg BD | ongoing |
| 18 Jan | QuantiFERON (TB) | negative |
| 18 Jan | FBC, LFTs | normal |
Nearly half the working day now goes to the record and desk work, and much of that is retrieval, not documentation: pulling together results, letters and prior decisions that already exist but sit in different systems. TENSOR Med assembles them into one place and keeps it current.
From a quick read to the original source. Most visits live in the first level; the rest is one click away when you need to check the working.
| 12 Feb | ASDAS-CRP | 3.4 |
| 04 Nov | Naproxen 500 BD | ongoing |
| 18 Jan | QuantiFERON | negative |
The same case, run end to end. Four analysts examine a de-identified record through different clinical lenses, respond to each other, and a moderator reconciles them into one recommendation.
The analysts do not just vote. Each proposes a next step, then responds to the others, the way colleagues would around a table, and a moderator reconciles the discussion into one recommendation. When three or four agree, it is presented as a clear recommendation; when they split, the report shows each option, names the analyst who argued for it, and lowers its confidence. When the case is genuinely unclear, the moderator prefers the safer, more reversible course, and keeps a working therapy in place unless the record gives a reason to change it.
Before the analysts start, they receive the encoded guidelines, drug information and trial evidence for that disease, plus a structured summary of this patient: their trends, what is overdue, prior decisions, and constraints such as pregnancy plans or funding. Its key claims point back to their source, whether a guideline step, a named trial, or a value in the record.
Each analyst breaks its conclusion into a few steps. Every step is one claim about the patient, and every claim carries its evidence: a guideline, a trial, or a value in the record. Open a citation to see the source it rests on.
Two NSAIDs, naproxen and ibuprofen, have been taken at maximum tolerated dose for over four weeks without adequate response.
ASDAS-CRP is 3.4: high disease activity, above the treatment target.
The ASAS/EULAR criteria to start a first-line biologic are met: at least two NSAIDs failed, and ASDAS ≥ 2.1.
In bio-naive non-radiographic axial SpA, a TNF inhibitor reached ASAS40 in 36% versus 15% on placebo.
No contraindication to a TNF inhibitor is recorded; TB screen is negative and baseline bloods are current.
Gap: chest X-ray and a pre-start pregnancy test are still outstanding.Escalation threshold: ASDAS ≥ 2.1 or BASDAI ≥ 4, after at least two NSAIDs over four weeks at maximum tolerated dose.
At week 12, ASAS40 was reached by 36% (36/91) on adalimumab versus 15% (14/94) on placebo; p<0.001.
Every citation is checked against the corpus. Ones that resolve are marked verified; a citation that cannot be resolved, or whose quote does not match the passage, is flagged, so a weak reference stands out rather than passing silently.
Every score the narrative mentions is compared with the recorded value. A drift is corrected to the record before it reaches you, and a contradiction, such as continuing a drug the record shows had failed, is flagged for review.
The original letters and PDFs sit beside exactly what was extracted from them. Document access is time-limited, and every view is logged.
Before a recommendation reaches you, the record is checked against the things that cause harm, using the same guidelines you follow.
Every active drug is checked against an encoded interaction set, with brand names resolved to the molecule. It catches combinations such as allopurinol with azathioprine, methotrexate with trimethoprim, and a live vaccine on a biologic.
Teratogenic drugs are checked against pregnancy and conception plans, with the washout each one needs, methotrexate 90 days, leflunomide up to two years, and a note when a β-hCG is out of date. Pregnancy-compatible options such as certolizumab are surfaced.
A clinically important rise in disease activity is flagged as a possible flare, and each drug's monitoring cadence is tracked, so an overdue FBC or LFT surfaces on the dashboard.
Safety concerns are shown, not enforced. Dismissing an urgent one takes a documented reason, which is kept in an audit trail the whole practice can review.
The analysts reason from the actual guidelines and evidence for the disease in front of them, not from general knowledge, so the same patient always produces the same sources.
Each disease carries its treatment algorithm as the actual escalation steps and thresholds, not prose. For axSpA that means the ASAS/EULAR ladder, down to two NSAIDs failed and ASDAS ≥ 2.1 before a biologic.
Mechanism, monitoring, contraindications, and the difference between an originator and its biosimilars. Humira, Amjevita and Hulio are not treated as interchangeable, because immunogenicity and cost genuinely differ.
Disease-activity and organ-function scores are calculated from the underlying values, not read off. ASDAS, BASDAI, BASFI and DAS28, with eGFR (CKD-EPI 2021) and Child-Pugh.
Response rates from the trials that apply to each drug and disease, with their placebo comparators, so an expectation rests on a number rather than an impression.
Guidelines are only useful against a full picture, so before every analysis the system also gathers the parts of the record that are easy to lose between visits.