Solutions
Start with one population, one clinical question, and one review step.
A PULSE engagement begins with a defined clinical use case and the workflow where physician-reviewed output would be used. Data scope, governance, evaluation methods, and success criteria are agreed before any data transfer.
From population responsibility to patient-level review
Figure 01- Population responsibility01
The organization is accountable for outcomes across a defined patient population over years.
- Trajectory reconstruction02
PULSE reconstructs each available longitudinal record into one ordered patient trajectory.
- Trajectory-based prioritization03
Patients whose trajectory is moving away from their own baseline surface for closer attention.
- Patient-level review04
A physician reviews the trajectory, the supporting observations, and the linked evidence, then records a decision.
PULSE sits between the population an organisation is accountable for and the individual review where a decision is actually made. Band widths are illustrative proportions, not patient counts.
Primary commercial focus
US risk-bearing primary care
PULSE helps US organizations accountable for long-term outcomes reconstruct patient context, review emerging longitudinal change, prioritize clinical review, and connect findings to evidence.
Buyer
ACOs, MSOs, Medicare Advantage-oriented provider groups, and multisite care networks that carry clinical and financial accountability for a defined population over years rather than visits.
Operational problem
Chronic risk develops continuously while the record captures isolated events. By the time a threshold is crossed, the change has usually been visible in the record for months, spread across laboratory results, encounters, and notes that were each read in isolation.
Patient-review workflow
PULSE prepares the patient trajectory ahead of the review step the organization already runs — annual wellness review, chronic-care follow-up, or pre-visit preparation — so the clinician starts from a reconstructed history rather than a search.
What PULSE contributes
- Emerging chronic-condition progression
- Repeated abnormal results
- Care gaps
- Patient-review prioritization
- Physician time allocation
- Cross-site consistency
Organizational value
- Longitudinal change surfaced while it is still reviewable
- Limited clinical capacity directed toward the patients selected for review
- The same review structure applied across clinicians and sites
- Findings retained with the observations and evidence behind them
How a PULSE engagement runs
- 01
Define the use case
Agree the clinical question, target population, available data, and intended review step.
- 02
Confirm governance and data scope
Document permitted data, processing roles, security requirements, retention, and deletion before transfer.
- 03
Run a retrospective evaluation
Apply PULSE to agreed historical cases using a documented evaluation design.
- 04
Conduct physician review
Clinicians adjudicate findings, omissions, traceability, and workflow usefulness against agreed criteria.
- 05
Make an evidence-based decision
Proceed to a controlled pilot or broader engagement only if agreed criteria are met.
Success criteria are selected for the use case before evaluation. They may include traceability, physician agreement, omissions, calibration, and workflow fit. Their inclusion here does not imply current performance.
Evaluation agreements, data-processing terms, security documentation, and deployment requirements are reviewed during procurement. Do not send patient data through this website.
Retrospective evaluation is in progress.
Structured offer
The PULSE Evaluation
A scoped, physician-led evaluation for US risk-bearing primary care organizations. One population, one clinical question, one physician review workflow — run retrospectively on your own historical data, under an agreed governance and evaluation design.
- One population
- A defined patient cohort the organization is already accountable for.
- One clinical question
- A single agreed question the output must speak to, stated before any analysis.
- One physician review workflow
- The existing review step where physician-reviewed PULSE output would be used.
Five stages
- 01
Scope and governance
Agree the population, clinical question, review workflow, evaluation design, permitted data, processing roles, security requirements, retention, and deletion.
- 02
Secure historical-data preparation
Historical records in the agreed scope are transferred and prepared under the documented data-processing terms. No patient data is sent through this website.
- 03
Retrospective PULSE run
PULSE reconstructs each patient trajectory and prepares evidence-linked findings for the agreed cases, using the evaluation design fixed in stage one.
- 04
Clinician adjudication
Your clinicians review findings, omissions, traceability, and workflow fit against the criteria agreed before the run.
- 05
Decision report
A written report of the design, what was reviewed, what clinicians recorded, and the limitations of the evaluation.
Decision gate
The evaluation ends in an explicit decision, taken against the criteria agreed up front.
- Stop — The agreed criteria are not met and the engagement ends.
- Proceed to a controlled pilot — A governed pilot is defined for the same review workflow.
- Expand — Scope widens to further populations, questions, or review workflows.
Also served
Other care and research models
Longitudinal-care networks
Programs built on repeated measurement need a consistent way to read those measurements as trajectories rather than as a stack of results.
- Repeated measurements resolved into one trajectory per biomarker
- Biomarker trajectories with stated uncertainty
- Standardized review structure for every consultation
- Cross-site consistency across a growing network
- Follow-up prioritization based on direction of travel
Clinical research and evaluation
Research partners use PULSE as a longitudinal analysis layer over real-world cohorts, and as a system under evaluation in its own right.
- Longitudinal cohort analysis
- Retrospective evaluation on held-out data
- Medical AI benchmarking against defined comparators
- Physician adjudication of model output
- Joint technical reports where agreed
Tell us about your clinical workflow
We start from the population you are accountable for and the review step where the output would be used.