AI agents for competitive and portfolio intelligence
Systematic reviews take six to twelve months of manual screening, and every new indication starts another one. TrialMind analyses primary sources directly — trial registries, publications, and conference abstracts as they are presented — and every claim carries its source. No GxP validation required to get started.
Primary sources, read directly
Reviews that finish
A systematic review takes six to twelve months of manual screening, and every new indication or submission starts another one. TrialMind screens at published accuracy and gives every inclusion and exclusion a traceable, reproducible rationale — so the result is defensible, not merely fast.
The landscape, including what is not indexed yet
Our conference-abstract pipeline covers the major scientific meetings, so competitor work surfaces as it is presented rather than months later when it is indexed. Landscape and people questions come out of the same corpus.
Portfolio calls with a method you can examine
Deciding which programmes to fund without a defensible read on probability of success means betting on instinct. Our outcome prediction rests on published research rather than a marketing claim, so the people betting a programme on it can inspect how it works.
A read someone will act on
A landscape briefing gets challenged in the room. Provenance on every claim is what turns it from a point of view into evidence.
Provenance on every claim
Each statement traces to the primary source it came from. That is what makes a competitive read usable in a portfolio review rather than only in a briefing deck.
Analysis over primary sources
Trial protocols, clinical publications, and conference abstracts read directly — not summaries of summaries, and not limited to what a database has finished indexing.
No GxP gate to get started
This work does not require GxP validation to be useful, which makes it the lowest-friction way to put TrialMind in front of a real question at your organisation.
Why not just use a general-purpose model?
Your analysts are already using general-purpose models for this — that is the honest starting point. The difference is coverage and provenance: whether the answer rests on primary sources that can be checked, including work that has been presented but not yet indexed anywhere.
Ask us a landscape question you need answered this quarter. Because this work needs no GxP validation, we can usually turn it around before a procurement conversation would even start.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do we need GxP validation or a long IT review to start?
No. Competitive and portfolio intelligence work does not touch patient data or regulated deliverables, so it does not require GxP validation to be useful. This is usually the fastest way to get TrialMind working on a real question inside an organisation.
Where do the conference abstracts come from?
We run a pipeline over abstracts from the major scientific meetings, so work surfaces as it is presented rather than after it has been indexed elsewhere. The same corpus supports competitor analysis by author organisation and KOL discovery.
Can we see the source behind every claim?
Yes — that is the point. Every statement traces back to the trial record, publication, or abstract it came from, which is what allows the output to be used in a portfolio review where someone will ask where a number came from.
How is probability of success calculated?
Our outcome prediction is grounded in published research, with the method described in the peer-reviewed literature rather than asserted. If you are going to bet a programme on a number, you should be able to examine how it was produced.
Can you answer a bespoke question, or is this a fixed report?
Bespoke, per programme. The work is driven by the question your team actually has this quarter rather than by a fixed publication cadence.
How is this different from the reviews our HEOR team runs?
Different output and different audience. Reviews here inform portfolio and R&D strategy decisions. Reviews built for payer dossiers are audited by HTA bodies for method and belong with HEOR and market access — we treat those as separate work, not the same review relabelled.
Trusted by Leading Organizations
From top pharma companies to academic medical centers
