Vertegrity
Cervical spine clinical reasoning · NASS 2026

Where instinct meets evidence.

Vertegrity makes the reasoning behind a spine surgery decision visible. Review the clinical picture, explore reasonable treatment philosophies, understand patient-specific considerations, and see where the evidence leaves uncertainty.

Request a NASS demoExplore the workflow

Current focus: cervical decision support. Clinician judgment and shared decision-making remain central.

Illustrative workflow · no patient data

From a report finding to a question worth answering.

Review the source
Example report text

“C5–C6: disc osteophyte complex with right foraminal narrowing.”

Structured review

Level, laterality, finding and original wording stay visible for clinician review.

Confirmation comes first

A report finding alone does not establish the symptomatic level, operative indication or final treatment.

Explore the reasoning

What needs to be treated?

Connect the reviewed anatomy with symptoms, neurologic findings and the patient’s clinical context.

Which treatment philosophies fit?

Explore decompression, motion preservation and stabilization as applicable. Exact levels, suitability and feasibility matter.

What could change the decision?

Make unresolved prerequisites and relevant evidence limitations visible before interpreting the options.

The Anti-Echo Mechanism

A better-informed decision starts with independent reasoning.

Vertegrity is designed to examine the case independently of the surgeon’s preferred operation. Its purpose is to sharpen the discussion by exposing alternatives, assumptions and decision-changing questions.

Clinical objectives first

Determine what requires treatment before considering the named operation.

Patient-specific fit

Consider alignment, stability, bone quality, prior surgery and construct extent.

Uncertainty stays visible

An unknown finding calls for clarification; it should not silently become an unfavorable fact.

Current cervical workflow

Review the facts. Understand the options. Keep the reasoning visible.

1

Bring the report

Paste report text or import a supported report document. Review extracted anatomy alongside its source wording.

2

Confirm the clinical picture

Reconcile imaging, symptoms, neurologic findings and prior surgery. Extracted findings remain reviewable before confirmation.

3

Explore reasonable strategies

Review treatment objectives, exact constructs, patient-specific considerations and questions that could change suitability.

4

Review evidence and readiness

Inspect applicable comparative evidence and separately review supported Authorization pathways.

Report-text extraction is distinct from interpreting MRI or CT images directly. Direct-image intelligence is a future development direction.

What has evolved

Reasoning at the level surgeons operate.

01

Source-visible extraction

Review levels, laterality, stenosis and cord observations with source detail. Resolve ambiguous or conflicting findings before using them.

02

Clinical synthesis

Bring symptoms, neurologic patterns and anatomy together while keeping provisional observations distinct from confirmed facts.

03

Exact constructs

Reason through anterior, posterior and applicable mixed strategies with attention to operative levels, decompression coverage and stabilization.

04

Meaningful clarification

Surface missing information connected to a specific strategy’s suitability or feasibility, rather than hiding unresolved considerations.

05

Comparative evidence

Explore available outcome-specific differences, source applicability and uncertainty without implying a universal procedural winner.

06

Authorization readiness

Review policy support, submission guidance and administrative follow-up separately from the clinical decision.

For surgical teams

Make the decision easier to examine.

  • Explore clinically reasonable options and important unresolved concerns.
  • Understand why an exact construct fits the treatment objectives.
  • Discuss alternatives and uncertainty with the team and patient.
  • Retain the clinician’s final judgment.
For institutions

Start a focused evaluation.

  • Evaluate transparent reasoning on de-identified cervical cases.
  • Review source visibility and documentation needs.
  • Discuss workflow, security and deployment requirements.
  • Define validation goals before clinical implementation.
Evidence & methodology

Understand what the evidence can support.

Clinical reasoning establishes reasonable strategies for the patient. Available comparative evidence adds outcome-specific context, including applicability and limitations. Evidence visibility does not automatically confer authority to rank procedures or declare superiority.

Vertegrity’s goal is decision quality: a clinician who is materially better informed, whether or not the final treatment matches a presented strategy.

Applicable comparisonsConsider the studied population, procedure, outcome and follow-up horizon.
Explicit uncertaintyMixed or insufficient evidence should remain visible.
Validation in developmentReal-case review and regression testing support development. Formal multisurgeon clinical validation is planned; improved patient outcomes have not been established.
Authorization readiness

Clinical reasoning and coverage questions have different jobs.

Supported cervical pathways use confirmed case facts and governed policy content to explain readiness. Current demonstration scope includes Cigna ACDF, cervical disc arthroplasty and posterior cervical foraminotomy; other payer and procedure coverage is limited.

Authorization does not change clinical recommendations. Readiness is not payer approval, a guarantee of coverage or automatic submission.

Authorization rationaleReview the case-specific clinical and policy support and unresolved surgeon-owned facts.
Submission checklistReview supporting-document guidance without implying documents have been uploaded or submitted.
Administrative statusKeep coding, member-plan verification and administrative follow-up visible separately.

Security and deployment deserve a concrete review.

Authenticated access, case ownership boundaries and controlled workflows are part of the application. Production safeguards, data handling, contractual requirements and deployment readiness must be assessed for the specific environment.

Read the security overview
About Vertegrity

Built around a defensible decision.

Vertegrity is an AI-powered clinical reasoning resource for spine surgery. It brings patient-specific reasoning, evidence and uncertainty into the room while the surgeon brings judgment, experience and instinct.

Our approach and roadmap
Patent-pending clinical reasoning technologyU.S. application 19/836,286, “Computer-Implemented Governed Clinical Reasoning System and Uses Thereof,” filed October 9, 2026.
Current focus and future directionCervical reasoning today; broader spine coverage, direct-image intelligence and longitudinal coordination remain development directions.
FAQ

Before you explore a case.

What can I see in a NASS demonstration?

A cervical workflow from report-text review and clinical intake to transparent treatment reasoning, available comparative evidence and supported Authorization readiness. Bring a de-identified report or ask for a synthetic example.

Does Vertegrity simply confirm my preferred operation?

The Anti-Echo design calls for independent patient-specific reasoning. Alternatives, disagreement and missing information can all improve the discussion; agreement is not the definition of success.

What spine regions are the current focus?

The current governed reasoning workflow focuses on cervical spine surgery. Broader spine coverage is on the roadmap and should not be assumed to have the same maturity.

Does report extraction interpret the MRI images?

The current workflow extracts and structures report text. Direct MRI or CT image interpretation is a separate future direction.

Do the options have a universal numerical score?

The current presentation emphasizes clinical reasonableness, patient-specific fit, important considerations and available evidence differences. It does not establish universal procedural superiority through a single score.

Is Authorization readiness an approval?

No. Policy support, documentation guidance and administrative status are separate. The payer determines authorization and coverage; supported scope depends on the exact procedure and policy.

Is the product clinically validated?

Development includes regression testing and clinician case review. Formal retrospective multisurgeon validation is planned. Clinical benefit and improved patient outcomes have not been established.

Can we integrate it into our clinical environment?

Contact us to discuss evaluation scope, security, deployment and integration requirements. Direct EHR integrations and production deployment readiness must be reviewed for your environment.

Bring your questions to the NASS conversation.

Explore a de-identified cervical case, the reasoning behind the strategies, and the questions that matter before a decision.

Request a demo

Conference demonstrations are for evaluation and discussion. Do not send patient identifiers or clinical documents by email.