I asked Claude about this and its reply is below. In brief, Claude recommends that you use OpenEvidence for its superior medical capabilities:
"On the OpenEvidence comparison: there's a Nature Medicine paper getting circulated on social media claiming frontier general-purpose LLMs (Google, OpenAI, Anthropic models) outperformed OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI across medical knowledge benchmarks and blinded clinician evaluation of real queries. The source I found is a Digg aggregation of tweets discussing the paper, with one radiation oncologist pushing back, arguing OpenEvidence still gives more detailed and accurately-referenced answers for complex cases in his experience.
I'd treat this cautiously — it's a single secondhand source discussing a study I haven't read directly, and "physicians preferred X in a blinded test" claims tend to get oversimplified as they spread on social media. If you want, I can try to pull the actual Nature Medicine paper to see what it really shows methodologically.
On your actual question — no, I don't have the kind of access OpenEvidence has. OpenEvidence runs a retrieval-augmented system against a curated, continuously-updated index of peer-reviewed literature and guidelines, then generates referenced summaries from that retrieval. I don't have that standing infrastructure.
What I can do:
I have substantial medical knowledge baked into training (up through roughly August 2025), and I can use web search to find and read individual papers, abstracts, or guideline pages in real time — including fetching full pages when accessible.
So for a specific clinical question, I can search and synthesize from what's findable online, citing sources as I go. What I can't do is systematically scan "thousands of peer-reviewed studies" the way OpenEvidence's retrieval pipeline is built to — my search is more like targeted lookups than a comprehensive literature index.
For charts and data: if you give me numbers (trial results, lab values, whatever), I can absolutely build visualizations or tables from that. What I can't do is autonomously pull structured trial data from a database the way OpenEvidence might surface a forest plot from a meta-analysis it has indexed.
Given that you already use OpenEvidence and UpToDate as primary tools, I'd see my role as more complementary — good for synthesis, second opinions, working through reasoning, or digging into something not well-covered by those tools, rather than a replacement for the literature-retrieval function they're built for.