Describe the case.Read the reasoning.Prescribe with the evidence.
Turn a symptom picture into a ranked remedy shortlist — every candidate weighted from the rubrics you selected, keynote-checked against the Materia Medica, and shown with the working that produced it.
Traceable · Rubric-weighted · Materia Medica-grounded
Intelligence you can actually audit
AI case analysis for classical homeopathy: a ranked shortlist where every suggestion is traced back to the rubrics and Materia Medica that justify it.
From narrative to shortlist
Type the case the way you heard it. CuraSim parses the free-text story into rubrics, weights them and returns a ranked remedy shortlist in one click.
Traceable to every rubric
No black box. Each remedy shows exactly which rubrics it covers and where its keynote matches came from — open any number and follow it back to the source.
Strength of match, stated plainly
Every analysis carries a High / Medium / Low band and a percentage — a measure of how strongly the evidence points within the sources, not a prediction about your patient.
Grounded in Materia Medica
Keynotes are scored against Boericke and the classical texts. One tap opens any candidate straight in the Materia Medica with the remedy pre-selected.
A co-pilot that explains
Ask for the reasoning and get a leading remedy, a differential against the runners-up, a posology hint and the one follow-up question worth asking next.
Discuss in your mode
Keep a persistent thread on the case and switch between student, clinical and research modes — the discussion travels with the analysis.
Every remedy carries its evidence
The shortlist is not a guess — it is a ranked, scored trail you can follow all the way back to the case.
- Rubric coverage shown for every candidate
- Keynotes that matched — and the ones that did not
- One tap from remedy to Materia Medica
You remain the prescriber
CuraSim does not choose the remedy. It shows you which rubrics each candidate covers, which keynotes matched and which did not, and how strongly the evidence points — then gets out of the way. If the analysis cannot justify a suggestion, it says so.
What the analysis can’t do
- It works from the rubrics and keynotes available to it. A case built on incomplete rubrics will produce an incomplete shortlist.
- It weights Mind and Generals more heavily, following classical convention. That is a methodological choice, and you may disagree with it.
- Confidence reflects strength of match within the source data, not clinical outcome. A 92% match is not a 92% chance of cure.
- It cannot see your patient. Constitution, observation and the whole art of case-taking remain yours.
From story to shortlist, step by step
Five stages, fully transparent — you can see exactly how the case became a prescription.
Describe
Enter the narrative and a thermal cue — or bring rubrics from the case.
Parse
CuraSim extracts symptom stems and matches them to verified rubrics.
Repertorize
Rubrics are weighted — Mind and Generals carry more — and remedies ranked.
Score keynotes
Top candidates are checked against Boericke keynotes and modalities.
Explain
Read the confidence, the differential, and discuss it in a persistent thread.
Questions, answered
Does the AI replace my judgement?
No — and the design makes that structural rather than promised. Nothing is prescribed, nothing is auto-selected, and no suggestion appears without the rubrics and keynotes that produced it sitting beside it. The analysis is an argument you can audit, not an answer you must accept.
What do I have to type?
Just the case in plain words, plus an optional thermal cue. CuraSim parses the narrative into rubrics for you — or you can carry rubrics over from the repertory.
How is the shortlist ranked?
Rubrics are weighted (Mind and Generals count for more), repertorized, then the top candidates are re-scored against Boericke keynotes to produce the final ranking and confidence band. Every step of that is visible in the result, not hidden behind the number.
What does the confidence percentage actually mean?
How strongly the shortlist is supported by the rubrics and keynotes in front of it — nothing more. It is a measure of evidential agreement within the sources, not a probability of cure, and it cannot account for what you observed in the room.
Let the evidence do the talking
Start free — no card required. An analysis you can trace, end to end.