Axelium

Axelium is an AI-assisted platform for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, covering evidence search through reporting and living reviews. Its 11-stage workflow includes protocol, search, screening, full-text review, extraction, RoB 2.0, GRADE, statistics, network meta-analysis, reporting, and living reviews. The maker says AI extracts structured values while deterministic analysis code calculates statistics, with data points linked to snippets in original PDFs. Listed methods include pairwise and network synthesis, Cochrane RoB 2.0, GRADE certainty ratings, CERQual, and PRISMA-style reporting. It imports references from tools such as EndNote, Zotero, and Mendeley, as well as databases including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EuropePMC, OpenAlex, CENTRAL, MAUDE, and ERIC. Exports include Word, Excel, RIS, BibTeX, and RevMan 5. Team controls include roles, comments, dual-person sign-off, conflict adjudication, and versioned audit snapshots. A free plan includes one lifetime review and one seat; Researcher costs $29 a month. Reviewers need to check screening suggestions, extracted values, risk-of-bias assessments, and draft reports. Recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis is paused.

Axelium combines review workflow stages, analysis methods, collaboration controls, and exports in one platform. Its AI-assisted outputs still require reviewer checks, and one living-review refresh capability is paused.

Axelium suits researchers and review teams conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses, including pharma, HEOR, CRO, HTA, and guideline groups. Teams should account for the required human validation and the paused recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis.

Axelium is a platform for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with AI-assisted evidence handling and structured analysis. It is best suited to researchers and evidence teams managing a review from search through reporting. Its main appeal is the breadth of its workflow; AI outputs and reports still need reviewer checks.

Overview

Axelium brings protocol, evidence search, screening, analysis, collaboration, and reporting into one review workflow. That breadth can suit teams that need coordinated methods and oversight across a full review. A reader who only needs paper screening may find more of the platform than their work calls for.

Key features

The 11 stages cover protocol, search, screening, full-text review, extraction, RoB 2.0, GRADE, statistics, network meta-analysis, reporting, and living reviews. This gives teams a path through several stages in one platform, while requiring reviewers to stay involved where AI suggestions or assessments need validation.

Axelium says AI extracts structured values and deterministic analysis code calculates statistics. Data points link to snippets in original PDFs, which gives reviewers a way to trace extracted values to their source. The maker cautions that screening suggestions may be wrong, extracted values and risk-of-bias assessments need validation, 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 cover EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, Embase, and Web of Science; database sources include PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EuropePMC, OpenAlex, CENTRAL, MAUDE, and ERIC. Exports include DOCX, XLSX, RIS, BibTeX, and RevMan 5.

Team controls include admin, lead reviewer, reviewer, and viewer roles, along with comments, mentions, dual-person sign-off, conflict adjudication, and versioned audit snapshots. The pricing page states GDPR compliance and full audit trails for every review; Enterprise adds BYOK. These controls suit teams that need review decisions and changes tracked.

The browser companion captures articles, PDFs, supplements, and citation metadata from pages users can legally access into an Axelium review. Google and Microsoft sign-in are supported. For living reviews, scheduled cycles can still import, screen, and extract new evidence for network reviews, but recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis is paused.

Pricing

The Free plan costs nothing and includes one lifetime review, one seat, all core features, and community support. It provides a way to work through one review, but the lifetime cap makes it unsuitable for ongoing review work.

Researcher costs $29 a month, with three reviews per month, one seat, all core features, and email support. Review packs start at $49. This is the entry paid tier for an individual handling multiple reviews.

Professional costs $79 a month and includes 12 reviews per month, one seat, priority email support, discounted review packs ($39 / 3), living-review automation, and an Analysis Workbench for custom methods. It fits an individual who needs the higher monthly review allowance or those added capabilities; it still has only one seat.

Team costs $266 a month, with seven pooled reviews per seat per month, a three-seat minimum, shared extraction and statistics artifacts, a per-seat attribution dashboard, and priority support. Its minimum commitment is aimed at groups that need shared work and per-seat accountability.

Enterprise has custom pricing for custom volumes and includes BYOK, SSO, and on-prem. Axelium is freemium, with paid plans starting at $29/mo.

Platforms

Axelium is available on the web and as an extension. The extension’s capture workflow can bring accessible articles and supporting materials into a review.

Who it's for

The product is aimed at individual researchers, pharma and HEOR teams, CROs and consultancies, HTA bodies, and clinical guideline committees. Researchers working alone can start with Free or choose a paid single-seat plan as their review volume grows. Groups that need shared artifacts and role-based 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

• Pros: An 11-stage workflow combines review steps, synthesis methods, and reporting, which can reduce the need to split a complex review across separate tools.
• Pros: Source-linked extracted values and versioned audit snapshots support traceability and review oversight.
• Pros: Team roles, sign-off, and conflict adjudication provide specific controls for collaborative review work.
• Cons: AI screening, extraction, and risk-of-bias outputs need human validation, and generated reports need checking.
• Cons: Every paid tier below Enterprise is limited to one seat except Team, which requires at least three seats.
• Cons: Recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis is paused, limiting that automated part of the workflow.

Alternatives

Consider Rayyan if Android or iOS access matters, or if its free plan’s three active reviews and two free reviewers better fit a screening-focused workflow. Choose Elicit for its Basic plan’s unlimited search across more than 138 million papers, unlimited summaries, and unlimited chat with papers. Silvi offers unlimited reviews on its free Basic plan. Systematicly has a free Explorer plan for three active personal drafts, one lifetime feasibility preview, and three lifetime Evidence Answers. Mapped Research offers up to 1,000 screening citations, 200 AI-assisted screenings, PRISMA auto-generation, open-access full-text retrieval, and up to three collaborators on its free plan. Moara has a free plan for libraries of up to 50 papers, with Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar search, Zotero and LibKey, and viewer or editor collaboration. Scholarcy is an extension and web option for article summaries, with 10 summaries on its free plan. Sysrev offers unlimited public projects and project reviewers on its free Basic plan. Browse the AI Literature Review Software directory for more options.

Verdict

Axelium is a strong fit for researchers and evidence teams who want systematic review stages, established synthesis methods, collaboration controls, and exports together. Its breadth and traceability are the main reasons to choose it. Look elsewhere if you need mobile platforms, a multi-seat team plan without a three-seat minimum, or recurring statistical refresh for living-review network meta-analysis.