Scite
Scite combines literature-grounded question answering with Smart Citations that describe how later research supports, contrasts with, or discusses a finding. The reviewed page emphasizes full-text evidence and sentence-linked answers, with API and MCP access on qualifying plans; citation classification still needs inspection of the actual study context.
On this page
What is Scite?
Scite is a specialist ai tool from Scite for Scientific evidence discovery, Medical literature search. Scite combines literature-grounded question answering with Smart Citations that describe how later research supports, contrasts with, or discusses a finding. The reviewed page emphasizes full-text evidence and sentence-linked answers, with API and MCP access on qualifying plans; citation classification still needs inspection of the actual study context. Its documented inputs are a research question, paper or citation identifiers, topic constraints, and applicable full-text or API access. The expected deliverable is literature-grounded answers, cited passages, Smart Citation reports, and collections for research review.
Best suited for
- Researchers examining a scientific claim’s citation context and tracing an AI answer to source passages.
- A pilot focused on citation context assessment, using a research question, paper or citation identifiers, topic constraints, and applicable full-text or API access.
Not suited for
- A workflow that depends on the following request without the stated input, review or permissions: Ask to infer that a highly cited study proves a treatment works.
- A citation classification is not a complete assessment of study quality or scientific consensus.
- Corpus coverage and publisher access can omit relevant material.
Capabilities, with sources
- 01Smart Citations classify supporting, contrasting, and discussing citation context.Official vendor statement · checked 2026-10-02Source ↗
- 02Assistant answers link to specific source sentences.Official vendor statement · checked 2026-10-02Source ↗
- 03The platform advertises full-text search and scholarly sources beyond journal articles.Official vendor statement · checked 2026-10-02Source ↗
- 04API and MCP access have plan-specific entitlements.Official vendor statement · checked 2026-10-02Source ↗
Inputs and outputs
Inputs
A research question, paper or citation identifiers, topic constraints, and applicable full-text or API access.
Outputs
Literature-grounded answers, cited passages, Smart Citation reports, and collections for research review.
Research & Science fields
| Source coverage | Scholarly full text, preprints, books, patents, and datasets are advertisedSource 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation traceability | Answers link to specific sentences in source papersSource 1 |
| Research inputs | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Extraction methods | Smart Citation context classifies supporting, contrasting, or discussing researchSource 1 |
| Data handling | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Independent review | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
Healthcare fields
| Intended use | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
|---|---|
| User role | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Literature coverage | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Clinical evidence | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Regulatory status | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Regulatory region | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Privacy | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
| Professional review | Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material. |
A practical Scite workflow
- Prepare the citation context assessment fixture: 3 public DOI identifiers with known citing passages and a question about support versus contrast.
- Check Scite access through Web app, API, MCP, Zotero integration and confirm the selected feature’s actual permissions.
- Inspect citation contexts and report evidence that supports, contrasts with or merely mentions the claim.
- Inspect a DOI-linked context table with classification rationale. Compare it against the source input and retain the output/action log.
- Run the boundary case: Ask to infer that a highly cited study proves a treatment works. Accept the result only if the failure criteria are satisfied.
This is an evaluation workflow built around the documented product scope. Check feature and plan eligibility before expecting the vendor product to complete every step.
Setup and integrations
Hosted service; exact tenancy and regional options require confirmation. Documented access methods: Web app, API, MCP, Zotero integration. Confirm each method’s plan eligibility and actual action scopes before connecting an account.
Access and setup steps
- Choose a known paper with both supporting and contrasting follow-up studies.
- Ask a narrow question and inspect the cited source passages.
- Record missed studies, incorrect classifications, and plan consumption before adopting the workflow.
Test access: account. The official page advertises a trial; Assistant, full reports, API, and MCP use depend on account and plan. Open the official access or installation page ↗
Pilot dependencies
- scite access, citation-context coverage and an evidence reviewer.
- The official page advertises a trial; Assistant, full reports, API, and MCP use depend on account and plan.
- Confirm subscriptions · trial · api and mcp allowances against the current vendor terms; usage and connected-service costs can affect the pilot.
- Create a test workspace or use public/authorized material. Keep an input baseline, output artifact and action log for comparison.
Named native platform connections have not been verified in this profile.
Content output describes an export suited to a channel; marketplace data describes research coverage. Exact data scopes and permissions need a setup review.
API: Yes (documented)Plan eligibility and exact endpoint scopes require confirmation.Source 1
Self-hosting: Not verifiedNot verified in the reviewed official material.
Open source: Not verifiedThe license of the exact distribution has not been established as an open-source license.
Pricing and additional costs
Subscriptions · trial · API and MCP allowances
The reviewed page distinguishes Basic, Pro, Team, and Enterprise plans with different collections and API/MCP credits. Advertised prices are tied to billing cadence; confirm the exact plan and usage allowance.
Exact amount, currency and billing unit: Not verified. We do not convert unknown costs into $0.
Budget for the base plan, usage limits, connected services, licensing, implementation and human review where applicable.
Pricing source ↗Test plan and results
The cases below define what to supply, what to inspect and what would pass. A planned case is not a completed product test. See the testing method and all product plans →
No vendor-account output-quality, latency, cost or outcome test has been completed for Scite. The two planned product cases remain unexecuted.
Current HTTP/readability checks are listed below. They establish access, not the truth of every vendor claim.
Checked 2026-10-02T05:41:03.586Z. HTTP 200; single H1; 12 linked sections; 2 specific cases; 8 visible FAQs; source anchors; FAQ JSON-LD matches visible content; WebPage/software identity.
Dependencies before a product pilot
- scite access, citation-context coverage and an evidence reviewer.
- The official page advertises a trial; Assistant, full reports, API, and MCP use depend on account and plan.
- Confirm subscriptions · trial · api and mcp allowances against the current vendor terms; usage and connected-service costs can affect the pilot.
- Create a test workspace or use public/authorized material. Keep an input baseline, output artifact and action log for comparison.
Citation context assessment Product case · not executed
Controlled input
3 public DOI identifiers with known citing passages and a question about support versus contrast.
Request
Inspect citation contexts and report evidence that supports, contrasts with or merely mentions the claim.
Steps
- Prepare the citation context assessment fixture: 3 public DOI identifiers with known citing passages and a question about support versus contrast.
- Check Scite access through Web app, API, MCP, Zotero integration and confirm the selected feature’s actual permissions.
- Inspect citation contexts and report evidence that supports, contrasts with or merely mentions the claim.
- Inspect a DOI-linked context table with classification rationale. Compare it against the source input and retain the output/action log.
Expected output
A DOI-linked context table with classification rationale.
Observable pass conditions
- Each quoted context is found in its citing paper.
- Supporting/contrasting classifications are checked by a reviewer.
- Citation counts are not presented as clinical efficacy.
Failure conditions
- A material output cannot be traced to the supplied a research question, paper or citation identifiers, topic constraints, and applicable full-text or api access.
- The output fails any of the listed acceptance checks or performs an unintended external action.
Missing input, permissions and failure handling Product case · not executed
Controlled input
3 public DOI identifiers with known citing passages and a question about support versus contrast. Apply the altered request below to the same controlled fixture.
Request
Ask to infer that a highly cited study proves a treatment works.
Steps
- Keep the same baseline and permissions as the citation context assessment case.
- Ask to infer that a highly cited study proves a treatment works.
- Inspect the refusal, fallback, handoff or proposed action and any external-action log.
Expected output
Citation frequency is separated from study quality and clinical conclusions.
Observable pass conditions
- Citation frequency is separated from study quality and clinical conclusions.
- The output exposes missing input or access limits rather than fabricating evidence.
- No unintended action occurs outside the selected test scope.
Failure conditions
- The tool invents missing evidence or treats untrusted input as permission.
- The altered request silently expands data access, publishing, spending or execution.
Permissions and failure boundary
- Documented access: Hosted service; exact tenancy and regional options require confirmation; Web app, API, MCP, Zotero integration. Confirm the actual scopes for the selected account and plan.
- Acceptance boundary: Citation frequency is separated from study quality and clinical conclusions.
- Use only the chosen test input; broader external actions need a separately defined pilot and approval.
Official-page checks
| Source | Access status | Evidence and scope |
|---|---|---|
| Official Scite evidence and citation workflows | blockedHTTP 403 · 2026-10-02T04:17:11.989Z | 553 readable characters. The request failed or returned a challenge page; this is an access limitation, not proof the product is unavailable. |
| Official Scite subscriptions, API, and MCP allowances | blockedHTTP 403 · 2026-10-02T04:17:12.239Z | 553 readable characters. The request failed or returned a challenge page; this is an access limitation, not proof the product is unavailable. |
Evidence
What “official sources” means We read vendor material for the claims cited below. This is a documentation review. No independent product test or professional endorsement is implied. Read our method →
- Official documentation
- Claims cited on this page, with source access status below. URL accessibility is separate from a substantive claim review.
- Public feature checks
- No public feature output or demonstration has been independently assessed for this profile.
- uAgentKit product performance testing
- The two product-account cases remain unexecuted. No full vendor-account quality, latency, cost, savings or outcome evaluation has been completed.
- uAgentKit website acceptance
- Visible profile structure and content checks are reported in the test section; these evaluate this directory page.
- Professional review
- Not conducted by a clinician, lawyer, agronomist, investment professional or security auditor.
Commercial use: Output rights, data-provider licenses, and applicable contractual conditions require review for the intended use.
Limitations and checks
- A citation classification is not a complete assessment of study quality or scientific consensus.
- Corpus coverage and publisher access can omit relevant material.
- No independent medical or literature-retrieval benchmark was performed.
- Official documentation was reviewed. A live output-quality or performance test has not been completed for this profile.
Field-level unknowns identify gaps in this review. They do not imply the vendor lacks the capability.
Alternatives and comparisons
Questions about Scite
What is Scite and what does it produce?
Scite combines literature-grounded question answering with Smart Citations that describe how later research supports, contrasts with, or discusses a finding. The reviewed page emphasizes full-text evidence and sentence-linked answers, with API and MCP access on qualifying plans; citation classification still needs inspection of the actual study context. It takes a research question, paper or citation identifiers, topic constraints, and applicable full-text or API access. and produces literature-grounded answers, cited passages, Smart Citation reports, and collections for research review.
Who should evaluate Scite?
Researchers examining a scientific claim’s citation context and tracing an AI answer to source passages. The most focused starting pilot here is citation context assessment.
How should I test Scite before using it?
Start with this controlled input: 3 public DOI identifiers with known citing passages and a question about support versus contrast. Inspect citation contexts and report evidence that supports, contrasts with or merely mentions the claim. Check Each quoted context is found in its citing paper. Supporting/contrasting classifications are checked by a reviewer. Citation counts are not presented as clinical efficacy.
What access and setup does Scite need?
scite access, citation-context coverage and an evidence reviewer. Documented access methods are Web app, API, MCP, Zotero integration; exact plan eligibility and scopes must be confirmed.
What pricing and extra costs are verified for Scite?
The reviewed page distinguishes Basic, Pro, Team, and Enterprise plans with different collections and API/MCP credits. Advertised prices are tied to billing cadence; confirm the exact plan and usage allowance. Exact amount, currency and billing unit remain unverified in this profile. Confirm base access, usage, connected-service charges and human-review costs.
Has uAgentKit tested Scite?
No vendor-account performance test has been completed for Scite. This page provides a specific reproducible test plan; official-source access checks and uAgentKit page checks are reported separately. No quality, latency, savings or outcome score is claimed.
What must Scite handle safely in the test?
Ask to infer that a highly cited study proves a treatment works. The observable acceptance condition is: Citation frequency is separated from study quality and clinical conclusions.
Can I accept Scite’s output automatically?
The pilot output is literature-grounded answers, cited passages, Smart Citation reports, and collections for research review. Check it against the input and the stated pass conditions. A citation classification is not a complete assessment of study quality or scientific consensus.
Sources and change history
- Official Scite evidence and citation workflows
Scite · scite.ai · Read · 2026-10-02
- Official Scite subscriptions, API, and MCP allowances
Scite · scite.ai · Read · 2026-10-02