Connect
PetConnect
Cortex
Multilingual veterinary AI should be evaluated on the exact task and language your team uses. A translated interface, speech transcription, clinical-note drafting and translation of owner instructions are different capabilities. Availability in one area does not establish accuracy in the others.
Begin with a defined workflow and a reviewer who can assess both the language and the clinical meaning. Treat generated output as a draft until it has been checked.
Separate the language capabilities#
Ask the provider which languages are currently supported for each function and whether the answer differs by device, plan or input type. Request a demonstration with representative synthetic examples. Keep future roadmap items outside the launch acceptance criteria.
Capability | Example question |
|---|---|
Interface | Are labels, errors and help available in the required language? |
Transcription | How are accents, background noise and mixed-language speech handled? |
Note drafting | Are observations kept distinct from clinical interpretation? |
Translation | Are negation, timing, units and instructions preserved? |
Review | Can a clinician compare the source, correct the draft and identify the final version? |
Test meaning, not only fluency#
Prepare a small test set before the demonstration. Include similar-sounding terms, abbreviations, numbers, units and statements containing negation. Add an example where an owner’s observation must remain attributed to the owner rather than becoming an examination finding.
A sentence can sound natural while changing its meaning. NIST’s generative-AI risk profile identifies confabulation among relevant risks. Fluent wording is not evidence that a clinical statement is correct.
Do not test with identifiable patient or owner records until the clinic has reviewed the applicable processing terms and its authority to use those records in the tool.
Define review and escalation#
For each draft, identify who checks the source language, who checks the clinical content and who approves the final communication. If no qualified reviewer can verify a translation, treat that as an unresolved limitation rather than accepting the text because it reads well.
Agree what happens when the source is unclear. A useful workflow exposes uncertainty and allows correction. It should not encourage staff to fill missing observations with plausible details.
Measure the work the clinic actually performs#
Record the test case, output, correction and reviewer decision. Group problems by type: omitted information, added information, altered meaning, terminology or formatting. Track review effort as well as drafting time.
Repeat relevant cases when a model, language setting or workflow changes. A vendor-wide “accuracy” percentage cannot replace evidence for the task, language and population in your clinic.
Make a deployment decision#
Launch only the uses for which the team can explain the review process and limitations. Keep a manual route available when the input is unsuitable or the reviewer is uncertain. Expand the scope only after evaluating the next task separately.
Read our veterinary AI evidence guide and data protection checklist. To evaluate Vetigen’s current language options, ask the team to demonstrate your workflow and confirm the supported scope.
