Public attention
30-day English Wikipedia pageviews, normalized across the measured set
AI company impact profile
Loading company impact history and evidence.

AI company impact profile
Google’s consolidated AI research and product arm, including Gemini and AlphaFold.
Rank #5 · Material observable footprint
Falling attention
Data effective Sep 12, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC · recomputed Sep 13, 2026, 2:18 PM UTC
How to read 55
The score normalizes public attention, official developer activity, evidence-backed gains, evidence-backed problems, and source breadth across the measured company set.
It does not mean: that Google DeepMind is the “best,” safest, most valuable, or most responsible company. Documented problems contribute to visible footprint rather than being hidden as a negative subtraction.
Read the complete methodology →Normalized components
30-day English Wikipedia pageviews, normalized across the measured set
stars and public repositories in the company’s official GitHub organization
independent stored sources attached to company-linked gain readings
independent stored sources attached to company-linked problem readings
unique independent sources in the published Truvace record
Observed history
Fixed 0–100 scale
Lines connect observed snapshots only. Gaps do not mean a score stayed unchanged. Diamond markers indicate a methodology-version transition.
| Effective date | Google DeepMind |
|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2026 | 60 · visible-impact-v1 |
| Jul 19, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 · method changed |
| Jul 20, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 21, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 22, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 23, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 24, 2026 | 54 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 25, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 26, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 27, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 28, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 29, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 30, 2026 | 74 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Jul 31, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 1, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 2, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 3, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 4, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 5, 2026 | 74 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 6, 2026 | 75 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 7, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 8, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 9, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 10, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 11, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 12, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 13, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 14, 2026 | 59 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 15, 2026 | 75 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 16, 2026 | 82 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 17, 2026 | 76 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 18, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 19, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 20, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 21, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 22, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 23, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 24, 2026 | 75 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 25, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 26, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 27, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 28, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 29, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 30, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 31, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 1, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 2, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 3, 2026 | 58 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 4, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 5, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 6, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 7, 2026 | 57 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 8, 2026 | 75 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 9, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 11, 2026 | 56 · visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 12, 2026 | 55 · visible-impact-v2 |
No interpolation
| Effective | Score | Rank | Gain | Problem | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 55 (-1) | #4 (0) | 80 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 11, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 56 (0) | #4 (0) | 80 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 9, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 56 (-19) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 75 (+18) | #4 (0) | 81 | 76 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 7, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 57 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 6, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 57 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 76 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 5, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 57 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 4, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 57 (-1) | #4 (-1) | 81 | 76 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 3, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 58 (0) | #3 (+1) | 81 | 76 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 2, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 58 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Sep 1, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 58 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
| Aug 31, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC | 58 (0) | #4 (0) | 81 | 77 | visible-impact-v2 |
Evidence profile
Bundled distribution makes organic usage difficult to separate from default placement.
Linked to the record
Claims are sorted by their existing Sourced Index impact score. Each card links to its Truvace record and original sources; company marketing is not treated as independent proof.
27 gain · 29 problem · 0 high-evidence
By July 30 2026, a narrative review in Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design described the use of structural modeling and artificial intelligence for functional prediction of proteins encoded by multidrug-resistant bacterial genomes. It reported that tools such as AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold have enabled high-accuracy three-dimensional structure prediction, facilitating annotation of hypothetical proteins and identification of conserved domains and catalytic sites.
Jul 31, 2026
By July 30 2026, a narrative review in Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design described the use of structural modeling and artificial intelligence for functional prediction of proteins encoded by multidrug-resistant bacterial genomes. It reported that tools such as AlphaFold and RoseTTAFold have enabled high-accuracy three-dimensional structure prediction, facilitating annotation of hypothetical proteins and identification of conserved domains and catalytic sites.
Jul 31, 2026
On September 9, 2026, a peer-reviewed comparative study reported testing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot on 20 radiological cases split between congenital anomalies and tumors. Each system received the same questions and images and was scored for diagnostic accuracy and explanatory completeness, with ChatGPT scoring 19 correct, Gemini 17, and Copilot 16.
Sep 10, 2026
A cross-sectional study tested four AI chatbots on 97 anonymized CBCT cases of jaw lesions, comparing performance on reconstructed 2D panoramic views and, for Manus, raw 3D DICOM data. Reports were scored for accuracy, relevance and feasibility, revealing statistically significant differences between systems.
Aug 5, 2026
Researchers prompted ChatGPT, DeepSeek, and Gemini with standardized musculoskeletal complaints for Lynchburg, VA and Trumbull, CT, and judged whether recommended physicians were currently practicing locally in the relevant specialty and whether phone numbers were correct. By the August 13, 2026 publication date, ChatGPT was appropriate in all 17 recommendations, while Gemini and DeepSeek were appropriate in 43% and 40% of recommendations respectively.
Aug 14, 2026
As of December 2025, researchers synthesized AI methods for enzyme engineering, using structure-prediction, generative, and reinforcement learning models combined with high-throughput screening to design and optimize enzymes, including synthetic synzymes for non-natural reactions.
Jul 20, 2026
In work published August 20, 2021, researchers built on the CASP14-era DeepMind approach to protein folding. They developed RoseTTAFold, a three-track network that processes sequence, distance, and coordinate information simultaneously, achieving accuracies approaching those of DeepMind.
Jul 13, 2026
On July 15, 2021, Nature published the AlphaFold study describing a redesigned neural network that predicts the three-dimensional structure a protein will adopt based solely on its amino acid sequence. The authors reported validation in CASP14, where the model regularly achieved atomic accuracy even when no homologous structure was available and performed competitively with experimental structures.
Jul 13, 2026
A September 2026 peer-reviewed study in The Knee compared four large language models on 30 common patient questions about robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty, evaluating responses with DISCERN, QAMAI, a 5-point clinical accuracy scale, and PEMAT and Flesch-Kincaid readability measures.
Sep 13, 2026
A September 2026 peer-reviewed study in The Knee compared four large language models on 30 common patient questions about robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty, evaluating responses with DISCERN, QAMAI, a 5-point clinical accuracy scale, and PEMAT and Flesch-Kincaid readability measures.
Sep 13, 2026
On September 9, 2026, a peer-reviewed comparative study reported testing ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot on 20 radiological cases split between congenital anomalies and tumors. Each system received the same questions and images and was scored for diagnostic accuracy and explanatory completeness, with ChatGPT scoring 19 correct, Gemini 17, and Copilot 16.
Sep 10, 2026
A peer-reviewed study published September 7, 2026 compared three large language models to 10 international hip preservation experts on a 21-item questionnaire derived from consensus guidelines for femoroacetabular impingement, dysplasia and microinstability. Gemini scored 100%, ChatGPT 98.4% and Claude 96.8% versus 90.5% for experts, with models also showing higher intra-item agreement.
Sep 8, 2026
Recorded changes