Empower your scientists with comprehensive literature analysis.
Your scientists are making pitches for which indications to target. The bottleneck isn't their scientific judgment—it's the months needed to build comprehensive literature-backed proposals.
The opportunity cost: If thorough literature analysis takes 6-9 months per target-indication evaluation, and your team runs 4-6 in parallel, you're evaluating 8-12 opportunities per year. Meanwhile, competitors with better tools are moving faster.
The first-mover reality:
First to identify and file for a viable indication: 3+ years market exclusivity (longer for orphan)
Second to file: late to market, diminished positioning
The difference isn't incremental—speed determines who captures the opportunity
The evidence quality problem:
Publication bias systematically hides negative findings—overestimating success probability
Critical signals are in gray literature: clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, failed primary endpoints with revealing secondary outcomes
Manual searches miss crucial studies: inconsistent terminology, lower-tier journals, non-obvious data sources
Incomplete evidence leads to expensive clinical failures—$15-40M programs built on incomplete mechanistic rationale
Start with your next indication pitch
Work with us in parallel to your standard process on a single target-indication evaluation your team is preparing.
Measure the time saved, the evidence completeness, the competitive landscape clarity.
Scale across your portfolio.
The math: Evaluate 20+ opportunities per year instead of 8-12. Equip your scientists to build evidence-backed pitches in weeks, not months. Make portfolio decisions based on comprehensive intelligence, not what's easy to find.