Patient-controlled health records AI
MAIA
MAIA describes patient-directed record interpretation with important hosting qualifications. Patient authority over questions does not establish privacy from a demo operator. Actual data handling, correction, and deployment controls remain untested.
Published September 8, 2026 as an AI-assisted draft. The public report separates documented facts, agency judgments and unresolved questions.
Summary judgment · 90 out of 100 toward patient-directed
Patient-provisioned MAIA private record agent. A shared demo or someone else's hosting account is a different trust arrangement.
Strongly agency-expanding, with demo-host-trust, security-maturity, and technical-burden caveats
MAIA describes patient-directed record interpretation with important hosting qualifications. Patient authority over questions does not establish privacy from a demo operator. Actual data handling, correction, and deployment controls remain untested.
Patient agency
How this tool changes agency
Source links and required reconciliation offer concrete mechanisms for checking interpretations and preparing care discussions.
Actual deletion, host isolation, public-model data handling and usability remain untested
Patient agency assessment
Who sets and changes the goal?
User-selected documents, editable instructions and verified summaries support direction over the assistant's context. Caregiver or third-party hosting must not be mislabeled as control by the patient.
What can the patient understand, question, or do?
Source links and required reconciliation offer concrete mechanisms for checking interpretations and preparing care discussions.
Can the patient evaluate the conditions of use?
The trust model is unusually candid. Pseudonymization does not guarantee anonymity, and choosing a public model introduces its own processing conditions.
Text findings
Conditions of use
Published controls and their limits
The trust model is unusually candid. Pseudonymization does not guarantee anonymity, and choosing a public model introduces its own processing conditions.
What remains unknown?
Not tested or not established
Actual deletion, host isolation, public-model data handling and usability remain untested
Who evaluated this?
AI-assisted public-source draft
Vendor statements describe published conditions, not independently verified behavior. No clinical, security, accessibility, or legal validation is claimed. Earlier evidence remains dated in the report and history.
Sources checked
Source-specific findings and retrieval limitations are recorded in the full report.
Review provenance
Criteria
CAIHL-derived HugoScore framework and September 7 qualitative review priorities. Draft v1.2 numerical anchors remain unadopted.
Reviewer
AI-assisted public-source reassessment prepared in OpenAI Codex.
AI / model
OpenAI Codex / GPT-6
Human review
Hugo Campos authorized publication of these AI-assisted draft reassessments on September 8, 2026. This does not claim comprehensive human verification of every finding.
Review date
2026-09-08
Limitations
Actual deletion, host isolation, public-model data handling and usability remain untested No live product use, patient-data upload, account creation, code audit, clinical evaluation, or independent implementation validation.
Review method
Focused public-source reassessment using CAIHL: patient authority, critical capacity, and informed control. Existing evidence plus one focused primary-source pass and at most one targeted follow-up. No live product testing. Numerical scores remain provisional editorial placements, not a new calculation.
AI-assisted draft · Moderate for documented design, limited for current live deployment (AI-assisted draft)