Reports · for Medical Affairs, HEOR and evidence planning
Find the questions clinicians are asking that the evidence does not answer.
Unanswered clinician questions are the most direct input to an evidence generation plan.
When you need it
- Annual evidence generation planning
- Choosing post-hoc analyses after a readout
- Reviewing investigator-sponsored study proposals
Ask your agent
“List the evidence gaps clinicians raise about this trial, and which aspects have no public commentary at all.”
More to ask
- “Group the unanswered clinician questions by type: comparator, subgroup, endpoint, real-world use.”
- “Which of these gaps could a post-hoc analysis address, and which need a new study?”
- “Across my reports, which unanswered question comes up in more than one trial?”
Before and after
How the work changes
Today
- Collect gaps from field insights forms with no source behind them
- Plan studies from internal hypotheses
- Find out at the next congress that the question was already public
With Erudio
- Each gap tied to the clinicians and passages that raised it
- Thin or missing aspects flagged, not hidden
- The same structure across trials, so gaps can be compared
What you get
- Questions clinicians ask that the available evidence does not answer
- Trial aspects with little or no public commentary
- Inputs for evidence generation planning
Tools it calls
mcp
read_report({ "report_id": "<id>", "sections": ["aspects", "coverage"] })
search_reports({ "therapeutic_area": "oncology" })In a published report
EA3191
NCT04671667
In EA3191, clinicians hope for a less toxic option the trial has not yet shown, and question reirradiation dose and cumulative-dose assumptions. One trial aspect is still marked incomplete.
- F1A potentially less-toxic replacement is the hope—not an established advantage
- F5Reirradiation questions extend from diagnosis and intent to dose, field size and acceptable harm
- F6Cumulative-dose calculations and recovery assumptions are viewed as uncertain and operationally fragile
What it does not do
- An evidence gap here is a question clinicians raise in public, not a gap analysis of all literature.
- Aspects with no public commentary are shown as such, not filled in.
- Inputs for planning, not a study design.