One protocol. One shot. One runway. Enrollment decides your timeline, and your timeline decides your next raise. We show you which sites can actually reach your patients before you commit a dollar, not six months in when there is no budget left to fix it.
A wrong site doesn’t announce itself at the start. It shows up as a slow ramp, then amendments, then rescue sites bolted on at premium cost, then a milestone that lands a quarter or two late. For a team where every trial counts, that’s not a snag. It’s the runway.
Same protocol, same runway. The difference is whether the sites were chosen on a guess or on real, counted patients.
Enrollment gap → protocol amendment → rescue sites → the milestone lands after the money runs out.
Counted patients → sites that reach them → a ramp that holds → you hit the milestone on plan.
Illustrative. In biotech the timeline is the asset. Enrolling on plan is what protects it.
We count the real, protocol-qualifying patients, map them to the investigators who can actually enroll them, and model your protocol against real patients so you see where you’d lose people, and which criteria you can safely loosen. You commit your runway to the sites that will reach the milestone, not the ones that looked good on a slide.
We can promise the patients are there because we can actually see them — the whole journey, every U.S. institution, even for rare and hard-to-find populations, not a snapshot. It’s the data advantage big pharma has always had, made reachable for teams where every trial counts.
You do not need a feasibility department to get this right. You need a straight answer at three moments, and a team that hands it to you rather than a tool you have to run. Here is what we hand back at each one.
Every eligibility criterion has a price in patients, and a draft protocol can quietly strangle its own enrollment pool. Before it is locked, we show you what each line costs in qualifying patients and where the protocol can safely open up.
A bigger eligible pool only matters if your sites can reach it. We count the qualifying patients at each candidate site and pair them with the investigator's real enrollment record, so the marquee names that would have failed come off the list before you pay to activate them.
The question your board and your investors will ask, and the one a slow ramp answers for you six months late. You walk in with a number for every site and the investigator who will deliver it, and you commit the runway to a plan you can defend.
In a recent rare-disease program, reading the protocol against real patient records nearly tripled the eligible pool — then became a ranked list of the sites that could actually reach those patients, before a dollar of startup budget was committed.
We have one trial and a small team. Is this too heavy for us?
No. It is built for exactly that. You send us the protocol and we do the work; there is no software to run and nothing to staff. You get the finished answer in days: how many patients actually qualify, which sites can reach them, and why. A forward-deployed team, not a tool for a two-person clinical operations group to learn. Send us your protocol →
Can you help before the protocol is final?
Yes, and that is the best time. We measure what each eligibility criterion costs in qualifying patients, so you can see where the protocol can safely open up and where it should not move. In a recent rare-disease program that nearly tripled the qualifying pool with the same scientific intent. Read the case study →
Our CRO handles site selection. Where do you fit?
As the check before you commit. Sponsors use us to pressure-test a proposed site list against the real patient record before activation dollars are spent, and the evidence works alongside whatever CRO you run with. It is your runway; this is how you protect it.
How do you protect our protocol and data?
Your protocol and study details stay yours. Every analysis is scoped to your engagement, runs on our own sourced evidence, and is never pooled with another client’s work. You receive the outcome, a ranked site list and the reasoning, never raw patient data, and the underlying record is de-identified by design. The honest boundary →
What do we actually get back?
A ranked, defensible site list, one page per site: the site and principal investigator with contacts and startup readiness, the qualifying patient counts at the facility and under the investigator’s direct care, a measured enrollment track record, and why each site made the list and why some marquee names did not. It is the answer to the question your board will ask: will it enroll? See the deliverable →
Bring us your study. We’ll show you the qualifying patients, the sites that will reach them, and where the enrollment risk is hiding — before you commit your runway.