Two fictional examples show the shape of the work: a site plan with explicit enrollment assumptions, and a patient-opportunity handoff for selected sites.
Fully fictional demonstration. Not client results, real patient data, a validated forecast or a live matching tool.
02 / AFTER SITES ARE SELECTED
Where are the patient opportunities around the sites we already selected?
Fictional protocol P-01 at already-selected Site B. The aggregate view and candidate review queue answer different questions; neither is a list of confirmed eligible patients.
Relevant treatment and testing signals in Site B's catchment
Coverage and referral overlap
Check whether the observed population is reachable through the authorized care pathway.
Candidate P-01 · fictional
Treatment-line and biomarker fields match the example rule
Current clinical status and exclusion criteria
Authorized reviewer checks the underlying record and remaining criteria.
Candidate P-02 · fictional
Disease field matches; biomarker result unavailable
A required matching criterion is unknown
Keep eligibility unresolved; do not count as a confirmed match.
Assumptions and limits
All candidates and fields are invented. No patient identifiers, clinical records or contact details are present. Aggregate populations and candidate rows are not additive; overlap, recency and missing criteria must be assessed.
Next action
Hand off through the agreed permissioned workflow. The clinical team verifies eligibility and determines any appropriate contact, consent and enrollment steps; a displayed signal does not authorize outreach.
Follow the reasoning, not just the table.
Illustrative review packet · P-01 / v1 · snapshot D0. Every rule, record and estimate below is invented for this demonstration; no review or site confirmation is represented as completed.
Decision: what should the authorized clinical team review next?
Review P-01's unresolved clinical fields; request the missing biomarker evidence for P-02. Neither candidate is counted as confirmed eligible, contactable or enrolled.
01Protocol matching rules
G-01 · Required fields
The fictional rule set uses disease setting, prior-treatment line, a required biomarker, current clinical status and exclusion criteria. Supported, conflicting and missing fields stay distinct.
G-02 · Recency and permitted use
A historical match does not establish current eligibility. The review packet must retain the source time window and the agreed recipient and use restrictions.
02Evidence ledger and candidate disposition
E-01 · Simulated regional summary / D0
Shows treatment and testing signals around Site B. It indicates where to investigate; it is neither a list of individuals nor a count to add to the candidate queue.
E-02 · Invented candidate P-01 record / D0
Treatment-line and biomarker fields support the example rules. Clinical status and exclusion criteria are missing. Disposition: prioritize completion of review, not an eligibility approval.
E-03 · Invented candidate P-02 record / D0
Disease information fits the example; the required biomarker result is absent. Disposition: evidence request. Missing cannot be replaced with a positive match.
E-04 · Recipient and pathway check / pending
Before any real handoff, establish the authorized reviewer and whether the underlying records may be accessed for this purpose. A match itself grants no right to re-identify or contact a person.
03Checks before handoff
Deduplication and denominators
Check whether the same person or referral pathway appears more than once. Regional opportunity, candidate records and confirmed eligible people are different units; do not total them.
Conflicts and stale information
A later contradictory result changes the status to unresolved and triggers review. Record why a lead is held or excluded rather than silently overwriting the earlier match.
Protocol amendment
Preserve the original rule version and re-run affected criteria. Do not carry an earlier qualification label into a changed protocol.
04Review handoff and completion record
OncoLattice · package the lead
Include a permitted reference, rule version, evidence date, supported criteria, unknowns, review priority and intended recipient. This public example contains no actual identifiers or records.
Check the underlying record and all remaining criteria; record the disposition and reason. Determine the lawful and appropriate pathway for any contact and consent.
Sponsor / site · feedback within the agreed scope
Distinguish reviewed, eligible, consented and enrolled outcomes. Feed authorized outcomes back into the analysis without interpreting absence of feedback as failure or success.
Tell us whether you are choosing sites or working with sites already selected. Start with non-confidential context; we will define the relevant deliverable and access arrangements together.
OncoLattice BioONCOLOGY ENROLLMENT INTELLIGENCE