| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Free |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Delivers personalized AI-driven mentorship conversations tailored to cancer or MS patient journeys by embedding disease-specific knowledge graphs, treatment protocols, and symptom progression patterns into the conversational model. The system maintains contextual awareness of individual patient disease stage, treatment type (chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, DMTs), and psychosocial challenges through multi-turn dialogue state management, enabling responses that reference relevant clinical milestones and evidence-based coping strategies without requiring explicit medical diagnosis input per conversation.
Unique: Embeds disease-specific knowledge graphs and treatment protocol awareness directly into conversational model rather than using generic health chatbot templates, enabling contextually relevant responses that reference individual patient treatment stage, specific cancer subtypes (e.g., HER2+ breast cancer vs. triple-negative), or MS disease-modifying therapy types without requiring explicit medical input per turn
vs alternatives: More clinically contextualized than generic mental health chatbots (Woebot, Wysa) but lacks the human expertise and liability protection of licensed therapists or disease-specific support organizations like LIVESTRONG or the National MS Society
Maintains a patient-specific conversational memory system that tracks treatment history, emotional patterns, previously discussed coping strategies, and personal goals across multiple sessions. The system uses session-based state management to recall prior conversations, recognize recurring concerns (e.g., chemotherapy anxiety, fatigue management), and build longitudinal understanding of patient progress without requiring users to re-explain their situation. Context is stored server-side with encryption and user-controlled retention policies.
Unique: Implements patient-specific context persistence with disease-specific pattern recognition (e.g., identifying chemotherapy anxiety cycles, MS fatigue patterns) rather than generic conversation memory, enabling the AI to proactively suggest coping strategies based on recognized emotional or symptom patterns across sessions
vs alternatives: Provides continuity advantage over stateless chatbots (ChatGPT, generic health bots) but lacks the clinical integration and outcome tracking of EHR-connected patient engagement platforms like Livongo or Omada Health
Generates conversational responses using fine-tuned language models trained on patient testimonials, clinical psychology principles, and disease-specific communication patterns to produce emotionally validating, non-judgmental mentorship. The system applies safety filters to avoid harmful medical advice while maintaining empathetic tone, using techniques like sentiment-aware response ranking and clinical guideline constraints to ensure responses acknowledge patient suffering without overstepping into medical decision-making or false reassurance.
Unique: Fine-tunes response generation on disease-specific patient testimonials and clinical psychology principles rather than generic conversational AI, enabling responses that validate disease-specific identity challenges (e.g., hair loss, cognitive changes, disability identity) while applying clinical safety constraints to prevent harmful medical advice
vs alternatives: More clinically sensitive than general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude) but lacks the therapeutic training and licensure of human therapists or the evidence-based intervention protocols of clinical mental health apps (Headspace, Calm)
Implements a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system that grounds conversational responses in a curated knowledge base of disease-specific information including treatment protocols, symptom management strategies, patient testimonials, and clinical guidelines. The system uses semantic search to retrieve relevant knowledge snippets based on user query intent, then synthesizes retrieved information into conversational responses with source attribution. Knowledge base is updated periodically with new clinical evidence and patient-contributed content.
Unique: Implements disease-specific RAG with curated knowledge base of cancer and MS treatment protocols, symptom management, and patient testimonials rather than relying on general web search or generic health information, enabling grounded responses that cite clinical guidelines and peer-validated patient experiences
vs alternatives: More reliable than web search-based health chatbots (Perplexity, general ChatGPT) for disease-specific information but less comprehensive than full medical literature databases (PubMed, UpToDate) and lacks real-time clinical trial matching of specialized platforms (ClinicalTrials.gov, Matchminer)
Generates and tracks personalized coping strategy recommendations based on patient-reported symptoms, emotional patterns, and prior strategy effectiveness. The system uses behavioral pattern analysis to identify which coping approaches (mindfulness, journaling, social connection, physical activity) have worked for the individual patient in past sessions, then recommends new strategies aligned with patient preferences and disease-specific challenges. Tracks strategy adoption and perceived effectiveness through follow-up conversations to refine recommendations over time.
Unique: Implements patient-specific coping strategy recommendation with effectiveness tracking based on individual behavioral patterns rather than population-level recommendations, enabling the AI to learn which strategies work for each patient and progressively refine suggestions based on prior adoption and perceived benefit
vs alternatives: More personalized than generic mental health apps (Headspace, Calm) offering population-level strategies but lacks the clinical assessment and therapeutic guidance of evidence-based digital therapeutics (Ginger, Talkspace) or human therapists
Facilitates access to anonymized patient testimonials, shared experiences, and peer-validated coping strategies from a community of cancer and MS patients. The system retrieves relevant peer experiences based on disease type, treatment stage, and symptom similarity, presenting them as contextual examples of how other patients have navigated similar challenges. Optionally enables patients to contribute their own experiences (with anonymization and moderation) to build a growing repository of peer wisdom.
Unique: Aggregates and surfaces anonymized patient testimonials and peer experiences specific to cancer and MS disease types and treatment stages rather than generic health community content, enabling patients to learn from peers with similar diagnoses and treatment contexts
vs alternatives: More disease-specific and accessible than in-person support groups (LIVESTRONG, MS Society chapters) but less authentic and community-driven than peer-moderated online forums (Reddit r/cancer, MS subreddits) or identified peer support platforms
Provides disease and treatment-specific education about expected side effects, their typical timeline, severity ranges, and management strategies. The system uses clinical guidelines and patient testimonials to normalize common side effects (hair loss, neuropathy, fatigue, cognitive changes) and distinguish between expected effects and warning signs requiring medical attention. Delivers this information in empathetic, non-alarming language while clearly delineating what requires immediate clinical escalation.
Unique: Delivers treatment-specific side effect education grounded in clinical guidelines and patient testimonials with explicit escalation pathways for warning signs, rather than generic health information, enabling patients to distinguish expected effects from medical emergencies while normalizing common experiences
vs alternatives: More comprehensive and treatment-specific than general health chatbots but less authoritative than oncology/neurology clinical decision support tools (UpToDate, Micromedex) and requires clear disclaimers that it cannot replace clinician assessment
Addresses disease-specific psychosocial challenges including identity disruption (hair loss, body image changes, disability identity), relationship strain, sexuality and fertility concerns, return-to-work challenges, and existential questions about mortality and meaning. The system uses empathetic, non-judgmental language to validate these challenges while offering practical strategies and peer perspectives. Acknowledges that these challenges are normal and significant, distinct from clinical depression or anxiety.
Unique: Explicitly addresses disease-specific psychosocial challenges (identity disruption, relationship strain, sexuality, existential questions) as distinct from clinical mental health conditions, using empathetic validation and peer perspectives rather than clinical pathologization or generic coping advice
vs alternatives: More psychosocially nuanced than clinical mental health apps focused on symptom reduction but lacks the therapeutic expertise and human connection of therapists, social workers, or disease-specific support organizations with psychosocial programming
+2 more capabilities
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs Belong AI at 41/100. FinQA also has a free tier, making it more accessible.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions