I'm a radiology intern finishing my medical degree in Ukraine. Somewhere along the way I ended up with more textbooks, atlases, and protocols than I could ever "study" in the traditional sense — and I'm genuinely bad at note-taking and memorization. What I actually needed was a way to work with the material: get tested on it, get corrected, and see whether it stuck.
That's why I started building ACTRA in October 2025. It's a toolkit for turning your own material — text, images, protocols — into interactive practice: click-the-zone tasks, contour drawing, error-spotting, sorting, tests, whatever fits the content. You build the tasks yourself from whatever you're studying, or pull from a shared catalog if someone else has already published something that fits. Everything ties into a spaced-review system so you actually retain what you study instead of just re-reading it.
I've built it solo since then, and tomorrow it launches on Product Hunt. Would genuinely appreciate any support, feedback, or just people telling me what's confusing about it — this is my first real launch and I'd rather hear the hard truth now than after.
The part that landed for me was that you built it because rereading never worked for you. That comes through much more than the feature list.
I kept picturing a med student asking ChatGPT how to study anatomy images instead of just making flashcards and stumbling across ACTRA. In that moment they're really looking to see if people have created practice that feels like the way they actually learn instead of another note taking app.
I'm curious if you've noticed early users talk more about the tasks other people have shared than the ones they made themselves.
What stood out to me is that you're not trying to make studying easier.
You're changing the relationship people have with what they're learning. Creating practice from your own material shifts the focus from consuming information to proving understanding, which feels like a much stronger outcome than another note-taking tool.