Endpoint-specific evidence
Review the endpoint, dataset, evaluation split, reference compounds and relevant error measures. Published results should identify the model version and the conditions of evaluation.
GENMAP-PRO™ · FOR BIOTECH, PHARMA R&D & INVESTORS
Preclinical decision intelligence for drug discovery
Derisk targets. Challenge molecules. Identify liabilities. Decide what to test next.
Genmap-Pro integrates disease biology, molecular activity and selectivity, ADME/Tox and early safety pharmacology into an independent assessment. Evidence quality, model applicability and uncertainty inform the next R&D decision.
Discuss your program View the assessment structure
Progress · Test · Redesign · Pause
THE PLATFORM
From fragmented evidence to an actionable decision
Start with a disease, target, therapeutic hypothesis or molecule portfolio. Follow the evidence through each decision gate.
- 01 · Hypothesis
Disease context and the decision to address. - 02 · Biology
Mechanistic evidence and target rationale. - 03 · Molecules
Client compounds, references and optional AI-generated candidates. - 04 · Activity & selectivity
Desired activity and potential off-target effects. - 05 · ADME/Tox
Exposure, developability and early liabilities. - 06 · Safety44
A structured early safety pharmacology assessment. - 07 · Confidence & domain
Evidence quality, uncertainty and model applicability. - 08 · Decision
Recommendations and experimental priorities.
Progress · Test · Redesign · Pause
Each recommendation links to its supporting evidence, limitations and the next experiment.
Computational findings support research decisions; experimental confirmation remains essential.
Biotech CEOs & CSOs
Prioritize programs, challenge scientific assumptions and prepare investor-ready narratives.
Pharma R&D teams
Support target assessment, asset evaluation and early preclinical strategy.
Investors & due diligence teams
Obtain an independent, structured and scientifically grounded view of asset risk.
Academic translational teams
Evaluate therapeutic hypotheses and identify the most relevant next experiments.
Five ways to de-risk a program
- Flash Due Diligence
A rapid 1–2 week assessment to identify early red flags, opportunities and Go / No-Go signals. - Asset Deep Dive
A comprehensive scientific evaluation of a drug discovery asset, integrating biology, activity, selectivity, ADME/Tox, safety and strategic recommendations. - Rare Disease Explorer
A dedicated workflow for rare diseases and poorly documented mechanisms, from biological rationale to candidate prioritization. - Candidate Sprint
An AI-guided generation and evaluation workflow to explore, rank and prioritize new molecular options. - Strategic Partnership
A long-term collaboration model for recurring analyses, dashboards, scientific reviews and strategic decision support.
VALIDATION & MODEL GOVERNANCE
Predictions are useful when their limits are understood.
Confidence, applicability domain, evidence coverage and biological plausibility are part of the interpretation. A single global accuracy score cannot describe every endpoint or scientific context.
Applicability domain
A prediction outside the model's domain needs explicit qualification. Missing coverage and out-of-domain findings are reasons for investigation, rather than reassurance.
Uncertainty & reliability
Distinguish model confidence, supporting evidence and unresolved questions. Provisional outputs should remain visible as provisional in the scientific interpretation.
Governance & traceability
A technical review should document model and data versions, reproducibility, separation of training and evaluation data, and the criteria used to compare a baseline with a challenger.
Assess the evidence for your context of use. Request the validation scope and available technical documentation relevant to your project. No claim of prospective clinical prediction follows from an illustrative case study.
Discuss validation requirementsSAFETY44™
A systematic layer for early safety pharmacology
Safety44 structures the review of potential liabilities across a panel of 44 safety-relevant targets, alongside activity, selectivity, ADME/Tox and biological context.
44-target panel → potential liabilities → coverage & confidence → integrated interpretation → experimental priorities
Panel size does not imply that every model is validated for every compound. Target-level coverage, model maturity and domain limitations must accompany the interpretation. A missing or low-confidence signal cannot establish safety.
Safety pharmacology is one layer of the assessment. Dedicated liver, transporter or other toxicology investigations may be needed for the question at hand.
Discuss a Safety44 assessmentREPORT STRUCTURE
See how evidence becomes a decision-ready assessment
Illustrative report sections below show the format of a review. They contain no client data, compound scores or measured performance results.
01 / BIOLOGY & TRANSLATION
Evidence map
Therapeutic hypothesis
Target and mechanism rationale
Supporting and conflicting evidence
Key translational uncertainties
02 / MOLECULAR ASSESSMENT
Activity & selectivity landscape
Reference and candidate comparison
On-target and off-target questions
Model domain and evidence coverage
Prioritized follow-up assays
03 / DEVELOPABILITY & SAFETY
ADME/Tox & Safety44 profile
Potential liabilities
Confidence and missing evidence
Exposure and mechanistic context
Experimental confirmation plan
04 / EXECUTIVE DECISION
Decision matrix
Progress · Test · Redesign · Pause
Evidence supporting the recommendation
Uncertainties that could change it
The next experiment and its purpose
A project-specific report links the scientific review to the decisions faced by the R&D team, management or investors. Discuss the scope and availability of a shareable, redacted sample.
Request a sample assessmentCASE STUDIES
Separate the biological strategy from the molecule decision
Public retrospective demonstration · company-reported analysis
Tavneos® / avacopan: target rationale and unresolved molecular risk
Question. Can a defensible therapeutic mechanism coexist with a molecule that needs further investigation?
Reported assessment. In its published retrospective review, Genmap describes retaining conditional support for the C5AR1 strategy while placing avacopan on hold pending further evidence. The review reports excluding recent regulatory and market developments from the assessment.
Experimental priorities. Selectivity, ADME/developability, liver-related liabilities and BSEP/DILI confirmation were identified as questions to resolve.
Limits. This is a retrospective demonstration, not an independently validated prospective benchmark. Some safety outputs were provisional or outside their applicability domain. Genmap did not claim to predict vanishing bile duct syndrome (VBDS). The underlying protocol and report are needed to assess the method and exclusion of outcome information.
Read Genmap's published case discussion on LinkedInThe value of the review is the separation of target rationale, molecule quality and the evidence still required for a progression decision.
Why Genmap?
Integrated
Biology, chemistry, activity, developability and safety considered together.
Uncertainty-aware
Evidence interpreted in context, with domain and confidence limitations.
Decision-oriented
A clear recommendation and the experiments needed to challenge it.
Confidential
A non-confidential first exchange, with NDA arrangements before sensitive project information.
Discuss your program Confidentiality & sovereignty
Research decision support. Computational assessments do not establish clinical efficacy or safety and require experimental validation. Scientific and model limitations.