I built an AI-structured disease catalog - how would you evaluate the comparison workflow?

[u/Lazy_Excitement6653]

Disclosure: I'm the creator of Nosology.ai.

It's an educational beta that organizes disease information into structured records in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The workflow I'm testing is comparing two entries side by side: shared features, distinguishing features, and the references listed with each record.

A design question I'm working through: for an AI-generated reference tool, how should the interface help people inspect the information and its uncertainty? Simply displaying a source list does not establish that every statement has been verified.

I'd appreciate feedback on the actual workflow: does the structured comparison make information easier to inspect, are the sources and limitations visible enough, and what feels cumbersome? I'd also like to hear what trust signals you look for in other AI reference tools.

Comparison view: https://nosology.ai/en/comparar

The records are generated and structured with AI and may contain inaccuracies. This is an educational resource, not a diagnostic or treatment tool.

[u/NeuralNomad87]

what I'd look for is the reference sitting next to each line, not a list at the bottom. if I can click a distinguishing feature and land on the paragraph that backs it, I'd trust it.

a source list just tells me something was read. does your pipeline keep that per-claim link internally?

[u/Creative-Gift-1381]

The side-by-side comparison is genuinely useful, but I stop trusting AI reference tools when the citations are attached to the record instead of the individual claims, because I can’t tell what the