Reports + MCP · for Medical directors and launch teams
See how clinicians read a trial result in the days and weeks after it lands.
A readout headline compresses a lot. The commentary shows what clinicians take from it, what they question, and why.
When you need it
- Topline results or a press release
- Full data at a congress or in a journal
- A label, guideline or regulatory decision
Ask your agent
“What are clinicians questioning after this week's data? Separate interpretation from what the primary results establish.”
More to ask
- “Which of the classic readout questions (comparator, endpoint, subgroup, generalizability) are clinicians raising about MARS 2?”
- “Where do surgeons and medical oncologists read this result differently, and why?”
- “Draft a one-page internal brief on the readout reaction, with a link behind every view.”
Before and after
How the work changes
Today
- Read the press release and a handful of reposts
- Wait weeks for an agency's social listening summary
- Miss the long-form podcast where the real critique happened
With Erudio
- Claims verified against the source passage, with speaker and date
- Interpretation kept apart from what the primary results establish
- Disagreement shown side by side, with the reasons on each side
What you get
- How clinicians are interpreting the readout, and why their readings differ
- The questions they are asking that the primary results do not answer
- Weekly updates as the conversation moves
Tools it calls
mcp
search_reports({ "nct_id": "<NCT ID>" })
read_report({ "report_id": "<id>", "sections": ["findings", "aspects"] })
search({ "query": "<trial> readout", "published_after": "<date>" })In a published report
MARS2
NCT02040272
How clinicians read the MARS 2 result: the questions they put to patient selection, systemic treatment and the survival analysis.
- F3Early-stage epithelioid selection is a proposed exception, not a demonstrated rescue of surgery
- F4Systemic-treatment delivery is debated as both a competing explanation and a consequence of surgery
- F6Survival language and crossing-curve analysis are genuine points of disagreement
What it does not do
- It reports how clinicians interpret a result. It does not judge efficacy or safety.
- Volume of commentary is not consensus. Reports say who said what, not what most clinicians think.
- Primary results come from the registry and publications, never from commentary.