What We Do
Four Questions That Define Strategy in Oncology
Every decision in life sciences commercial strategy starts with a question that is harder to answer than it should be. Not because the evidence is missing, but because it is scattered, unstandardized, and arrived too late.
Commercial Strategy & Competitive Intelligence
Where Do We Stand?
Your competitive landscape is assembled from five different sources, three different formats, and at least one
spreadsheet that nobody remembers updating.
Global trial registries, conference abstracts, press releases, analyst reports, internal trackers.
By the time your team reconciles them, the landscape has already shifted.
Kognitic Core structures the competitive landscape into a single, continuously updated view. Active trials, pipeline threats, competitive positions, and endpoint performance are normalized and mapped. Your team starts with the analysis, not the sourcing.
Global trial registries
247 active trials, raw data
Conference Abstracts
ASCO, ESMO, AACR
Press Releases
Scattered, unstructured
Analyst Reports
3 vendors, different formats
Internal Spreadsheets
Last updated… when?
Your Decision View
Your team stops sourcing and reconciling. The analysis starts with the landscape already structured.
The Forecasting Question
Is Our Window Closing?
The questions arrive faster than the answers. When does the competitor read out primary data? Does our enrollment timeline hold? What happens if the interim is positive? Is the launch window still viable? These are not research questions. They are capital allocation questions on a deadline, and they require structured competitive timelines, not a 40-page analyst deck assembled the night before the board meeting.
Kognitic structures the answers before the questions reach your desk. Competitive milestones, enrollment trajectories, and regulatory timelines are normalized and continuously updated. When the board asks whether the window is closing, you already know.
What Changes
Competitive readout timelines monitored and projected across the landscape.
Enrollment trajectories tracked against plan with early divergence signals.
Regulatory pathway milestones mapped from filing to approval.
Launch window viability assessed against competitive and regulatory calendars.
Kognitic structures the answers before the questions reach your desk. Competitive milestones, enrollment trajectories, and regulatory timelines, all normalized and continuously updated.
The Portfolio Question
Are We Allocating Capital to the Right Programs?
Quarterly portfolio reviews should surface risk, not bury it in 50 slides. Every asset under evaluation carries competitive exposure, regulatory uncertainty, market timing pressure, and evidence strength that can be quantified. But most reviews present these dimensions in isolation, assembled by different analysts, in different formats, at different levels of recency.
Kognitic structures the portfolio view your committee requires. Each asset is evaluated across competitive exposure, regulatory path, market timing, and evidence strength. Signals are normalized across the portfolio so that flagged assets surface before the meeting, not during it.
What Changes
Assets evaluated across four structured dimensions with consistent methodology.
Flagged assets surfaced with specific risk signals, not color-coded intuition.
Cross-portfolio comparison on normalized criteria.
Committee-ready summaries built from the same evidence foundation that produced the flags.
Quarterly Portfolio Review | 5 Assets Under Evaluation
IO Combo(NSCLC)
Approved | Merck partnership
ADC-1001 (Breast)
Phase 2 | In-licensed
Bispecific (CRC)
Phase 3 | Co-development
TKI Next-Gen
Phase 2 | In-licensed
IO Combo (Mel.)
Phase 3 | Internal
Each asset evaluated across
Competitive Exposure
How crowded is the space?
Regulatory Path
What stands between you and approval?
Market Timing
Is the launch window open?
Evidence Strength
Does the clinical data hold up?
The one page summary your committee requires, built from structured evidence. Not assembled from three analyst decks the night before the meeting.
The Evidence Question
Can We Trust the Comparison?
Every evidence review your team presents rests on a foundation that is rarely visible.
Normalized endpoints. Reconciled study designs. Matched patient populations.
Structured abstracts linked to original data tables. When this foundation is built manually, it takes two to three
weeks per review, it is rebuilt from scratch each quarter, and the findings are not reusable across teams.
Kognitic builds the foundation once and keeps it up to date. Cross-study efficacy benchmarks are built on normalized endpoints, harmonized across reporting standards, and traceable to source publications. The comparison your committee sees is auditable from the recommendation down to the structured abstract that produced it.
What Changes
Endpoints automatically normalized across incompatible study definitions.
Patient populations matched and biomarker subgroups aligned across trials.
Study design differences mapped, flagged, and reconciled.
Every comparison traceable from recommendation to source data, with a complete audit trail.
What Your Committee Sees
Pembrolizumab + Chemo vs. SOC in 2L NSCLC
Cross-study efficacy benchmark across 4 pivotal trials, normalized endpoints
Built on
Normalized Endpoints
ORR, PFS, OS harmonized across study definitions. ITT and per-protocol aligned.
Reconciled Study Designs
Phase, blinding, randomization, crossover rules mapped and flagged.
Matched Patient Populations
Eligibility criteria cross-referenced. Biomarker subgroups aligned across trials.
Structured Abstracts & Publications
Source text parsed, claims extracted, data points linked to original tables.
Every comparison is built on structured, auditable evidence. Not a slide someone assembled from memory and three PDFs.
Ready to Start
Start With the Question Your
Team Is Already Asking
Our team will walk you through a live demonstration in your therapeutic area, structured around the specific decision you need to make next.