COMPANY

Independent judgment. A shared clinical purpose.

OncoLattice helps Chinese oncology companies examine important global-development decisions. We connect clinical interpretation, evidence engineering, and the sponsor’s next practical question.

Concept illustration: multiple evidence streams converge through an independent decision lens.

Commercial direction and clinical intelligence are led together.

CEO

Zhipei Kevin Luo

Strategy · Product · Global Partnerships

CTO

Lun-Hsiang Yuan, MD, PhD

Clinical Intelligence · Medical AI Systems

OncoLattice does not replace CRO execution, sponsor governance, medical judgment, regulatory counsel, or legal review.

An operating model built for independent validation and visible governance.

Each engagement starts with a fixed decision, evidence boundary, review rule, owner, and validation plan. The resulting sponsor-side signal complements CRO execution and can be tested against the current plan.

Independent Signal

A focused analysis can be run before seeing the existing shortlist, then compared on overlap, incremental signal, contradictions, and decision impact.

Visible Reasoning

Sources, assumptions, estimates, inference, conflicting evidence, uncertainty, and reviewer status stay visible.

Oncology Context

Evidence is interpreted through disease, biomarker, treatment line, testing pathway, competition, protocol fit, and patient reality.

Decision Discipline

The engagement begins with one fixed question, clear success criteria, and boundaries around what the evidence can support.

OPERATING MODEL

A small accountable core, with review matched to the decision.

Product and business responsibilities sit with Kevin; technology and clinical-intelligence methodology sit with Allen. Each engagement defines its review responsibilities and any additional expertise needed.

COMMERCIAL + PRODUCT

Question and engagement direction

Frames the customer problem, fixed decision, evidence boundary, success criteria, and practical use of the output.

CLINICAL + TECHNICAL

Method and clinical interpretation

Guides technical approach, evidence architecture, clinical plausibility, and the interpretation boundary.

EVIDENCE RESEARCH

Research and analytical workflow

Retrieval, normalization, entity resolution, comparison, provenance, and version control support each bounded engagement.

WHEN FORMALLY ENGAGED

Project-specific specialist review

Additional disease, regulatory, statistical, or operational review may be defined for a specific engagement; none is implied by this public site.

DECISION AUTHORITY

Sponsor and execution ownership

Sponsors and their authorized medical, regulatory, legal, CRO, and execution teams retain final decisions and implementation responsibility.

REVIEW GOVERNANCE

The claim is bounded before the recommendation is delivered.

Governance is visible in the work product: what entered, who reviewed, what conflicts remain, and who must validate the next step.

01 / SCOPE

Fixed question and evidence boundary

Define the decision, evidence classes, exclusions, date cut, definitions, and success criteria before analysis expands.

02 / REVIEW

Source, clinical, and conflict review

Keep provenance, assumptions, conflicting evidence, unknowns, confidence changes, and reviewer status attached to the output.

03 / AUTHORITY

Explicit owner and next validation

Name the sponsor or execution owner responsible for forward-looking validation and preserve their final decision authority.

Help make the reasoning better.

Explore talent and collaboration directions across clinical research, engineering, product, and strategy.

Join Us ↗

START WITH ONE DECISION

A focused pilot begins with a fixed question.

The first engagement is designed to produce an independent signal that can be compared with the sponsor's or CRO's current view.

Discuss a Decision

Outputs are for strategic planning and do not guarantee patient availability, enrollment, site performance, regulatory outcomes, or clinical success.