You're sitting on a portfolio of molecules with billions in unrealized indication value. The bottleneck isn't scientific expertise—it's the months needed to systematically evaluate each opportunity.
The opportunity cost: If comprehensive literature reviews take 6-9 months per molecule-indication pair, and your team runs 4 in parallel, you're evaluating 6-8 opportunities per year. With 150+ molecules in portfolio, you're analyzing less than 5% of possible opportunities.
The first-mover reality:
First to file IND for a new indication: 3+ years market exclusivity (longer for orphan indications)
Second to file: compete on generic pricing
The difference isn't incremental—it's $300M vs. $0
The evidence quality problem:
Publication bias systematically hides negative findings—you're overestimating success probability
Best opportunities are in gray literature: clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, failed primary endpoints with interesting secondary signals
Manual searches miss critical studies: wrong terminology, lower-tier journals, non-obvious data sources
Start with your next repurposing candidate
Work with us in parallel to your standard process to prove timeline compression and evidence completeness on a single molecule-indication evaluation.
Measure the weeks saved, the sources covered, the competitive intelligence gathered.
Scale across your portfolio.
The math: Evaluate 20+ opportunities per year instead of 6-8. Find the 3-4 worth pursuing before competitors identify them. Build systematic portfolio intelligence across all 150 molecules to identify hidden gems.
Capture market exclusivity before anyone else files.