Real-time biomedical evidence synthesis that traces every answer to a named source — PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, guidelines, coverage policy — or plainly says “not enough evidence.” Never an un-sourced conclusion.
The same TARA provenance model as Drug Discovery — the cite-or-abstain layer underneath every Ardia product: the appeal cites a guideline, the coverage position cites an LCD plus literature, the PGx recommendation cites CPIC. This is what makes all of it defensible and auditable.
Ask a biomedical question; TARA Scholar retrieves from PubMed, Consensus and bioRxiv, then answers with each finding tied to a specific PMID/DOI and a GRADE-style strength label — or explicitly returns “insufficient evidence” instead of a confident-sounding guess. No synthesized statement appears without its citations.
Retrieves and cites Medicare coverage policy today; clinical-guideline retrieval (NCCN, CPIC, ACMG, USPSTF, GOLD/GINA) is in development alongside coverage policy (LCD/NCD, MolDX/DEX, CARC/RARC), anchoring a recommendation to the exact guideline section and policy id. The evidence spine for Ardia’s appeals, coverage positions and PGx recommendations.
When sources disagree it shows both positions side by side with a dedicated conflicting-source marker rather than silently averaging them or picking a winner — and distinguishes verified, conflicting and unverified claims explicitly. Guards against the most dangerous failure: a confident answer built on a contested or retracted finding.
Assembles a single cited dossier for a biomarker or target — human genetic evidence (Open Targets), pathway context (Enrichr), key literature, and registered trials — structured for human review. The evidence input that feeds the companion-Dx / coverage strategy on the Drug Discovery page.
Pulls registered trials, endpoints and eligibility (ClinicalTrials.gov) and real-world evidence framing into payer-ready dossiers — every claim cited, efficacy never predicted. Built for HEOR and market-access teams who must defend a coverage position with citable evidence.
Re-runs a saved question on a schedule and flags when new trials, guideline updates or publications change the answer — a compounding, auditable knowledge asset, the same moat dynamic as the Denial-Pattern Library.
A governed evidence synthesis on a real precision-medicine question. Every number below was retrieved live from ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed and links back to its source — and where a trial doesn’t cover the question, the engine abstains.
| Question | In newly-diagnosed advanced NSCLC with a common sensitizing EGFR mutation (exon 19 del or L858R), does first-line osimertinib improve outcomes vs an earlier-generation EGFR-TKI? |
| Pivotal trial | FLAURA — Phase 3, double-blind, randomized (556 patients) NCT02296125 → |
| Progression-free survival | 18.9 vs 10.2 months — HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.37–0.57), P<0.001 PMID 29151359 → |
| Overall survival (mature) | 38.6 vs 31.8 months — HR for death 0.80 (95.05% CI 0.64–1.00) PMID 31751012 → |
| Confirmatory (external) | FLAURA China — separate randomized study confirming the benefit PMID 33544337 → |
| ⚖ Abstained | FLAURA excluded uncommon EGFR mutations — for those, the engine returns “insufficient evidence from this trial” rather than extrapolating. |
Every figure is quoted from a named, retrievable source (PMID or NCT id). Illustrative of the governed method — not medical advice or a treatment recommendation.
Design/roadmap for a pre-revenue company — built on the cite-or-abstain grounding that is real today (live PubMed / ClinicalTrials.gov in the Studio). Pairs with Drug Discovery and the TARA core.
Talk to us →