Reports · for Medical directors and insights leads
Build an advisory board agenda around questions clinicians actually disagree about.
A good agenda starts from live controversy, not from a slide deck's assumptions.
When you need it
- Planning an advisory board after a readout
- Preparing a steering committee or expert panel
- Testing a scientific narrative before launch
Ask your agent
“Draft an advisory board agenda around the main questions clinicians disagree about in this report, with the reasons each side gives.”
More to ask
- “For each agenda question, list the strongest public argument on each side, with links.”
- “Which aspects of the trial have almost no public commentary, so the board should cover them?”
- “Turn the report's Medical Affairs question into five discussion prompts for a mixed surgical and medical panel.”
Before and after
How the work changes
Today
- Build the agenda from internal assumptions and last year's deck
- Discover the real controversy during the meeting itself
- Spend board time on questions the public conversation already settled
With Erudio
- Findings organized as questions, each with its disagreement
- Coverage per trial aspect, including what nobody discusses
- Sources ready to share as pre-reads
What you get
- The real points of disagreement, with the reasons on each side
- Aspects where public commentary is thin or missing
- Questions worth putting to the board
Tools it calls
mcp
read_report({ "report_id": "<id>", "sections": ["findings", "aspects"] })
search({ "query": "<open question>", "published_after": "<date>" })In a published report
MARS2
NCT02040272
Three open MARS 2 questions that would anchor an advisory board: whether selected surgery continues outside research, how to read the survival curves, and whether radiotherapy is the next step.
- F1The central dispute is whether selected surgery can continue outside research—not whether surgery should remain routine
- F6Survival language and crossing-curve analysis are genuine points of disagreement
- F9Radiotherapy is raised as a next step, but safety, treatment setting and appropriate observation limit the enthusiasm
What it does not do
- It proposes questions from public commentary. It does not choose or brief advisors.
- Disagreement is described with its reasons, never scored for who is right.
- Advisory boards remain a private, compliant process run by your team.