Pinned Tweet
Revolutionize your biology responses with BioloGPT—improve recursively and push the boundaries of science.
biologpt.com/
See the hottest (and coldest) science! bgpt.pro/science-stats
BGPT retweeted
We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics.
The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra.
The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.
Which Half of Your Field Won't Replicate?
When researchers re-ran published studies at scale, most findings didn't hold up.
You can't re-run every experiment. But the warning signs are visible: tiny samples, missing data, unstated assumptions. BGPT extracts them for your AI on every paper.
Spot the fragile findings before you build on them: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Peer Review Was Two Tired Postdocs at 11pm
That's the entire quality control behind "peer-reviewed study." Two overworked volunteers, once, years ago.
BGPT lets your AI re-review the evidence every time you touch it: sample sizes, exact results, limitations, and what would falsify the claim.
Trust, but re-verify: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Two people yelling paper titles at each other. Neither read past the abstract. Both certain.
End the thread with the evidence table instead: sample sizes, effect sizes, limitations, funding. Not vibes. Receipts.
Come armed, 50 records free: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Every AI company says their model is "grounded." In a summary of a summary of an abstract?
BGPT records point to the source: the section, the figure, the exact passage. Click through and watch the evidence hold up. Or not, which is just as useful.
bgpt.pro/mcp/
Take a controversial claim. Microplastics in tumors. GLP-1 and alcohol cravings.
Ask your AI to pull the evidence through BGPT and chart it: every study a row, with sample size, result, limitations, and conflicts side by side.
Build one in ten minutes: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Coffee Prevents Cancer. Coffee Causes Cancer.
You're not crazy. Headlines compress a messy 40-page study into one sentence, and the sentence usually loses.
BGPT lets your AI open the evidence behind any claim: what was measured, in whom, and how far it actually stretches.
Check one yourself: bgpt.pro/mcp/
The one question that separates science from wishful thinking. Most AI research tools can't answer it.
BGPT returns falsification criteria with every evidence record. Like a skeptical colleague who read the full text and noticed the study only ran in mice.
50 records free: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Bolting an LLM onto PubMed is a very expensive way to be wrong about a target or a trial design.
BGPT is the evidence layer underneath: claim-level extraction from full text, with results, limitations, and provenance your team can audit.
bgpt.pro/mcp/
It's the version of the study the authors want you to remember. The truth lives in the methods, the tables, and the limitations buried on page 9.
BGPT extracts that layer for your AI: claims linked to experiments, exact results, and how it could all fall apart.
bgpt.pro/mcp/
Which studies? Twelve mice? A retracted preprint? An industry trial with an endpoint swap?
Nobody checks, because checking used to take a week. BGPT makes your AI do it in seconds: sample sizes, conflicts, exact results, and what would falsify the claim.
Say "show me" and mean it: bgpt.pro/mcp/
That lit review you've been dodging for three weeks?
BGPT lets your AI rip through hundreds of papers and hand you what each study measured, in how many subjects, and where it gets shaky. Traceable to the exact figure.
Three weeks of reading becomes an afternoon of judging.
bgpt.pro/mcp/
Your AI gives beautiful, confident answers about science.
Ask it the sample size. Ask who funded the study. Ask what would prove it wrong. Silence.
BGPT gives it the actual extracted evidence, so you can check the answer instead of trusting it.
50 records free: bgpt.pro/mcp/
Ask your AI about a drug or a mechanism. It gives you a beautiful, confident answer built on abstracts it skimmed.
Ask it the sample size. Ask who funded the study. Ask what would prove it wrong. Silence.
BGPT fixes that. Your AI pulls the extracted evidence: the experiment, the exact numbers, the limitations, the receipts. When the answer matters, you can check it instead of trusting it.
First 50 evidence records free: bgpt.pro/mcp/
This is what I want AI for:
Not "trust me bro, studies show."
Pull the papers. Extract the data. Build the chart. Show the receipt.
"Forever chemicals" is an abstract phrase until the chart is about sperm DNA.
In one study, far fewer PFAS-exposed semen samples passed a no-DNA-damage stress test: 11% vs 56% in controls.
Small study. Very uncomfortable signal.
