OncoLattice BioOncology development intelligenceHOW IT WORKS
Define the question, inspect the evidence, challenge the interpretation, and agree what to validate next. Each step keeps a record of its reasoning.
A FIRST ENGAGEMENT / SCOPE EXAMPLE
A scoped analytical service, not a self-serve software subscription. The example below shows what to agree before starting a paid pilot; coverage, timing and fees are confirmed in writing.
Which candidates should enter feasibility first—and which assumptions could change that order?
Start with non-confidential program context. After agreeing confidentiality and access, provide the relevant protocol criteria, target geography, existing shortlist and the reasoning behind it. No patient-level files through this website.
Specify the cohort, candidate set, sources, permitted uses and evidence cutoff. Record inaccessible or missing evidence rather than silently expanding the scope.
A one-page decision summary; a candidate comparison; dated source links and assumptions; contradictions and gaps; and a validation checklist with proposed owners for the sponsor, sites and CRO.
Record the initial order before analysis. For each candidate, show whether the proposed priority is retained, raised, lowered or left unresolved—and exactly which evidence supports the change.
Agree acceptance criteria upfront: traceable material claims, explained differences, explicit unknowns and actionable follow-up. If the review adds no decision-changing evidence, say so and separate what was checked from what remains untested.
Agree who prepares the analysis, who reviews clinical interpretations and who accepts the deliverable. The sponsor retains the decision; the site and CRO verify current capacity and execution feasibility.
Every stage keeps a trace back to the underlying evidence and the decision question that made it relevant.
CLEAR DIVISION OF LABOR
The system is designed to expose what the model used and where human judgment changed the interpretation.
FROM DIFFERENCE TO DECISION
The goal is not to force consensus. It is to identify which divergence can materially change the decision and what should be validated next.
Sponsor, CRO, or internal hypothesis and shortlist.
Version-locked OncoLattice evidence signal.
An orthogonal layer where relevant and permitted.
Shared, unique, conflicting, unsupported, and still unknown.
Patient pool, PI bandwidth, competition, capacity, activation, and operational fit.
Sponsor or CRO authority sets the course and owns execution.
OncoLattice prioritizes validation questions; sponsor and CRO teams conduct forward-looking feasibility and make the final decision.
START WITH ONE DECISION
The first engagement is designed to produce an independent signal that can be compared with the sponsor's or CRO's current view.
Outputs are for strategic planning and do not guarantee patient availability, enrollment, site performance, regulatory outcomes, or clinical success.