An article that doesn’t sit right.
A quote with no source.
A data point that seems made up.

marlow checks the articles and documents you read — and the ones you author, before they leave the building. Whether the quoted experts exist, whether the cited studies are real, whether the numbers trace back to a real source. It shows you what it found, what it couldn't check, and why. The conclusion stays yours.

AI isn't the problem. Deception is.
northfieldhealthreview.com/research/nxr7-cognitive-decline
Northfield Health Review · Research
Breakthrough Study Links New Compound to 60% Reduction in Cognitive Decline
By J. A. Hartwell · March 28, 2026 · 5 min read
With more than 55 million people living with dementia worldwide, researchers at the European Centre for Neuroscience have published findings that a newly synthesised compound may significantly slow cognitive decline. Lead author Dr. R. L. Thornbury, described as a pioneer in neural inflammation research, stated that the compound was tested across 14 clinical sites in six countries. The study, reportedly published in Nature Medicine, found a 60% reduction in measurable cognitive decline.
3
marlow
northfieldhealthreview.com
Check firstChecked —
nothing found
Verify before sharing
Claims checked · 4
3 worth checking before you share it — 1 confirmed against its source.
Unverified expert
No academic profile, publications, or institutional affiliation found for Dr. R. L. Thornbury.
"Lead author Dr. R. L. Thornbury"
No record of citation
No matching article found in Nature Medicine archives. This citation may not exist.
"published in Nature Medicine"
Couldn't verify
Clinical trial claim with no trial registration number or named institution to check against.
"14 clinical sites in six countries"
Matches source
WHO reports about 55 million people living with dementia — the article's figure matches.
"more than 55 million people living with dementia worldwide"

This is already happening

And it isn't a few headline cases. An audit of 2.5 million biomedical papers found fabricated references have climbed roughly twelvefold in two years — reaching one paper in every 277 by early 2026.

Receipts, naturally — The Guardian · Fortune · International Accounting Bulletin · Semafor · STAT / The Lancet

What marlow actually checks

  • Fabricated quotes and unverified experts Direct quotes and named authorities we can't confirm are real.
  • Fake citations Studies and journals we can't find in academic databases.
  • Unsourced statistics Numbers that look fabricated or can't be traced to a real source.
  • Events reported nowhere else Named events we cannot find documented in independent news coverage.
  • And every claim gets a named answer Confirmed, contradicted by the source, no record found, nothing that can check it, or not checked in this scan — we tell you which, every time.

Every check runs against a registry of authoritative sources — 15 live today, with 34 more mapped and licence-assessed, with industry‑specific source packs on the roadmap.

The documents look finished.
That is not the same as checked.

So who checks them? marlow does.

Check the report before it goes out.

Scan a report in your browser today. Open the Documents tab in the marlow panel and drop in a PDF or Word document — currently in beta — and every checkable claim gets the same treatment as a web page: checked against external sources, each landing in a named, auditable state. A report you commissioned, a supplier's white paper, research you're about to act on — checked before you rely on it, whether AI wrote it or not.

The check has to be independent of whatever produced the document — the system that writes a claim is the wrong system to certify it, the same reason the auditor is kept separate from the accounts. As more documents are drafted by machine, an independent, claim-level evidence trail is what lets a team show its work held up before anyone relied on it.

A pre-send verification API is in development. Submit a document's text and get back the same per-claim evidence cards as a structured record: what was checked, against which sources, and which of seven honest states each claim landed in. Not a score you have to trust — receipts you can audit. We're onboarding pilot partners first.

Pilot access — talk to us
We're talking to our first partners now.

The limits, stated plainly.

Is this a truth detector?
No — and be wary of anything that says it is. We check whether the evidence behind a claim holds up: does the cited study exist, does the named expert have a record, does the figure match the official series. Whether the article's conclusion is right stays your call.
What happens when nothing can be found?
We say so. "No record in checked sources" means the sources we consulted had no matching entry — absence isn't proof, and the claim may still be accurate. What we won't do is fill the gap with a confident guess.
Can it be wrong?
Yes — which is why every finding shows its working, and why each update must pass the same exam before it ships: claims we already know the answers to, fakes it has to catch and truths it has to leave alone. One miss and it doesn't ship. You can also challenge any flag from the panel.