Axelium

Overview

Axelium is an AI-assisted platform for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, built to take research teams from evidence search through synthesis and reporting. It suits researchers and evidence teams that need structured methods and collaboration controls in one workflow. Its breadth is a strength, but reviewers must validate AI outputs, and recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis is paused.

Key features

The 11-stage workflow spans protocol design, searching, screening, full-text review, extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, certainty ratings, statistics, network meta-analysis, reporting and living reviews. That range can keep a review’s stages together rather than splitting work across separate tools; teams should still account for the human checks required at key stages.

Axelium says AI extracts structured values while deterministic analysis code calculates statistics, with extracted data points linked to source snippets in original PDFs. Those links help reviewers trace values back to evidence, but the maker warns that extracted values and risk-of-bias assessments need validation. Screening suggestions can also be wrong, and generated reports are drafts that require checking.

Methods include pairwise and network synthesis, Cochrane RoB 2.0, GRADE certainty ratings, CERQual and PRISMA-style reporting. Reference imports include EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, Embase and Web of Science; searchable database sources include PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EuropePMC, OpenAlex, CENTRAL, MAUDE and ERIC. Exports include Word/DOCX, Excel/XLSX, RIS, BibTeX and RevMan 5.

Team controls include admin, lead reviewer, reviewer and viewer roles, comments and mentions, dual-person sign-off, conflict adjudication and versioned audit snapshots. The browser companion captures articles, PDFs, supplements and citation metadata from pages users can legally access into a review. Pricing states GDPR compliance and full audit trails on every review; BYOK is an Enterprise feature.

For network reviews, scheduled living-review cycles can still import, screen and extract new evidence, but recurring statistical refresh is paused. Teams expecting the analysis itself to update on a recurring schedule should factor in that limit.

Pricing

Axelium has a free plan and paid plans from $29/mo. The free tier costs nothing and includes all core features, one lifetime review, one seat and community support. It is a narrow way for an individual to try the core workflow, not a recurring review allowance.

Researcher costs $29 a month ($29/ mo) for three reviews per month and one seat, with all core features and email support; review packs start at $49. It fits solo researchers with regular but limited review volume. Professional costs $79 a month ($79/ mo), raises the cap to 12 reviews per month while remaining one seat, and adds priority email support, discounted review packs ($39 / 3), living-review automation and an Analysis Workbench for custom methods. Choose it when those capabilities and higher volume justify the step up.

Team costs $266 a month ($266/ mo), with a three-seat minimum and seven pooled reviews per seat per month. Shared extraction and statistics artifacts, a per-seat attribution dashboard and priority support make it the plan aimed at collaborative groups; the minimum commitment makes it less suitable for a small team needing only occasional shared access. Enterprise uses custom volumes and custom pricing, with BYOK, SSO and on-prem deployment.

Platforms

Axelium is available on the web and as a browser extension. Google or Microsoft sign-in is supported. The extension’s capture workflow is useful for adding accessible articles and their citation metadata while browsing; it does not remove the need to check captured evidence and extracted content.

Who it's for

The product is positioned for individual researchers, pharma and HEOR teams, CROs and consultancies, HTA bodies, and clinical guideline committees. Solo researchers can start with Free or Researcher, while teams needing shared artifacts and role-based review controls should consider Team or Enterprise. Existing users can contact [email protected]; the team says it replies within 1–2 business days.

Pros and cons

• Pro: A broad review workflow combines search, screening, synthesis methods and reporting, which can suit projects that would otherwise span multiple tools.
• Pro: Source-linked extracted values and deterministic statistical calculations support traceability, while audit snapshots and sign-off controls help teams manage review decisions.
• Pro: Multiple reference imports, database sources and export formats support moving evidence into and out of the platform.
• Con: AI suggestions, extracted values, risk-of-bias assessments and draft reports all require human review, so automation is not a substitute for reviewer oversight.
• Con: Recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis is paused, limiting the platform’s current appeal for teams expecting continuously refreshed network results.
• Con: The entry paid plans are single-seat, while Team requires three seats; collaboration at scale entails a sizable minimum plan.

Alternatives

For a different fit, consider AI Literature Review Software. Mapped Research is a web freemium option whose free plan allows up to 1,000 screening citations, 200 AI-assisted screenings, PRISMA auto-generation, open-access full-text retrieval and three collaborators; choose it if those screening and collaboration limits match the project better. Moara offers a free web plan for libraries of up to 50 papers per review, Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar search, Zotero and LibKey, and viewer or editor collaboration; it may suit smaller review libraries.

Rayyan has Android, iOS, API and web access, with a free tier capped at three active reviews and two free reviewers plus limited mobile app access; it is worth considering when mobile access matters. ASReview is free and open source across desktop, web and self-hosted platforms, with no licensing fees or subscriptions, though running it on your own hardware or server may cost money; choose it if open-source software is the priority.

INRA offers a Teams & Institutions plan at $7.50 a year (billed $7.50/seat/month, billed yearly), with a three-seat minimum, Professional features and centralized user management and billing; it may fit institutions prioritizing centralized administration. Evidentum is a free web alternative. EPPI-Reviewer is another option to consider. PICO Portal offers a plan with one project, unlimited citations and collaborators, and may suit a project needing those allowances.

Verdict

Axelium is a strong fit for research teams that want systematic-review methods, collaboration controls and reporting in a single workflow. Its traceability and breadth are the clearest reasons to choose it, but plan for reviewer validation throughout and look elsewhere if recurring statistical refresh for living network meta-analysis is essential.