Upload PDFs, import from databases, and let AI help you understand, summarize, and connect your research papers.
Machine Learning in healthcare
Jan 12, 2024
Neural Network Architectures
Feb 1, 2026
Data Privacy in AI systems
Mar 1, 2023
Upload PDFs directly, import from DOI, PubMed, arXiv, or bulk import from Zotero and other reference managers.
Get instant summaries with multiple analytical lenses - methodology, findings, limitations, and more.
Organize papers into projects and folders. Create hierarchies that match how you think about your research.
Search across all your papers instantly. Find that citation you vaguely remember from months ago.
Read papers directly in Kearny Lane with annotations, highlights, and seamless navigation.
Share papers with collaborators or export your library with all metadata intact.
Highlight passages, ask the AI agent questions about the paper, and save notes directly from the reader. Everything stays linked to the page and passage you found it on.
What are the main disagreements between my papers on off-target effects?
I found three distinct positions across your library:
Doench et al. 2014 and Hart et al. 2015 argue off-target effects are predictable from sequence context and can be minimized with guide RNA design.
Tsai et al. 2015 is more cautious — their GUIDE-seq data shows unexpected off-target sites missed by computational prediction.
Anzalone et al. 2019 sidesteps the debate entirely by using prime editing, which has a fundamentally different mechanism with far fewer off-targets.
Want me to pull the supporting evidence from each paper?
Which paper makes the strongest case for base editing?
Komor et al. 2016 makes the strongest case — they demonstrate base editing with 15–75% efficiency and minimal indels across 12 genomic loci. Two papers in your library build directly on this: Gaudelli et al. 2017 extends it to A·T→G·C conversions, and Anzalone et al. 2019 cites it as the foundation for prime editing.
Key claim — check citations for imaging benchmarks
Compare with Rieke et al. 2020 on federated healthcare
Unlike single-paper chat, your project agent holds the full context of every paper you've uploaded — so it can draw connections, spot contradictions, and answer questions that span your entire library at once.
What are the main disagreements between my papers on off-target effects?
I found three distinct positions across your library:
Doench et al. 2014 and Hart et al. 2015 argue off-target effects are predictable from sequence context and can be minimized with guide RNA design.
Tsai et al. 2015 is more cautious — their GUIDE-seq data shows unexpected off-target sites missed by computational prediction.
Anzalone et al. 2019 sidesteps the debate entirely by using prime editing, which has a fundamentally different mechanism with far fewer off-targets.
Want me to pull the supporting evidence from each paper?
Which paper makes the strongest case for base editing?
Komor et al. 2016 makes the strongest case — they demonstrate base editing with 15–75% efficiency and minimal indels across 12 genomic loci. Two papers in your library build directly on this: Gaudelli et al. 2017 extends it to A·T→G·C conversions, and Anzalone et al. 2019 cites it as the foundation for prime editing.
Start with a 30-day free trial. No credit card required.
Join waitlist