Virtual Clinical Development

Simulate the trial before you run it.

A mechanistic simulation environment for Phase II oncology. Thousands of virtual patients, hundreds of protocol designs, one ranked answer.

Become a partner
Virtual cohort · tumour volume against time on treatment Response Progression
Design  07
Dose  200 mg q3w
Cutoff  TPS ≥ 50%
Responding  58%
Design space240 protocol variants per sweep
Virtual cohort4,000 patients per design
Trajectories2.4M simulated per sweep
CalibrationPhase I-III published outcomes, NSCLC
ArchitectureMechanistic. Every result traceable.

Architecture specification. Figures describe the system as designed.

The reframe

A probability is not a decision.

So we do not ask will this trial succeed. We ask which of 240 designs gives this compound its best chance — and what makes the difference.

One compound, end to end

The inputs are the same ones a team already holds at the Phase I/II boundary. Nothing here requires new wet-lab work.

Inputanti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, IV q3w, 200 mg Phase I PK and safety, n = 38 target PD-1 · indication advanced NSCLC
Modeltumour-immune ODE system calibrated against published Phase I-III outcomes
Cohort4,000 virtual patients PD-L1 TPS · tumour mutational burden · baseline burden immune infiltration · clearance · half-life
Sweep240 protocol designs dose · escalation · schedule · eligibility biomarker cutoff · combination · endpoint
Outputdesigns ranked by predicted responder rate recommended dose and cutoff for the top design the causal chain producing each result

Illustrative. The compound is generic and the values describe the method, not a study.

Causal chain · one virtual patient Signal propagating

Each arrow is an equation. This is what makes a result inspectable rather than asserted.

Four thousand patients who do not exist

The cohort is generated, not collected. Each virtual patient carries a full parameter set drawn from published population distributions, so the spread of the simulated population matches the spread of a real one.

Virtual cohort · PD-L1 TPS against baseline tumour burden Responder Non-responder
0Virtual patients
0%Responder rate, all comers
0%Responder rate above cutoff

Illustrative. Values describe the method, not a study.

Every trajectory, not the average one

A mean response curve hides the thing that decides a trial. The sweep keeps every simulated patient separate, so the shape of the distribution stays visible: who progresses early, who responds and relapses, and how wide the middle really is.

Simulated trajectories · one protocol design Individual patient Median and interquartile range

Illustrative. A subsample is drawn; a full sweep evaluates 2.4M trajectories.

What lands on your desk

Ranked designs

Every protocol evaluated, ordered by predicted responder rate and progression-free survival, with a recommended dose and biomarker cutoff for the design that wins.

Responder subgroups

Which patients benefit, and the mechanism that explains why they do.

The causal chain

Every result traced back through the biology that produced it, open to inspection by your own modelers and your regulators.

Not a score. A design.

The missing capability

By the time a company decides to begin a Phase II trial, it has already invested years and tens of millions of dollars. The decision still rests on limited human efficacy data. Phase I establishes safety and pharmacokinetics, while efficacy is inferred largely from animal models that translate poorly to patients. Roughly three out of four Phase II oncology programs fail, most often for lack of efficacy. Once the first patient is enrolled, the protocol is fixed and the capital is committed.

Every engineering discipline relies on simulation before committing capital. Aircraft are designed in simulators before they fly. Cars are crash-tested virtually before prototypes are built. Microchips are simulated before fabrication.

Drug development remains one of the few trillion-dollar industries still making its most expensive decisions without an equivalent capability.

Why non-small cell lung cancer, first

A benchmark that already exists

Keytruda, Opdivo, and Tecentriq have generated extensive published Phase I-III efficacy, survival, and biomarker data. The model can be calibrated and checked against real clinical outcomes without generating a single new wet-lab result.

Built for mechanism

PD-1/PD-L1 is among the most extensively characterized mechanisms in oncology. We are not inventing the biology. We are making it computable at the scale of a trial design.

Where failure costs most

Immuno-oncology is one of the largest areas of pharmaceutical R&D investment, and a failed Phase II writes off tens of millions.

The simulation architecture is indication-agnostic. Extending it means replacing disease-specific biology while reusing the modeling and acceleration layers.

One validated disease model, then the next, until no pharmaceutical company designs a clinical trial without first simulating it.

Design partners

Deliberately narrow, and deliberately falsifiable. We are selecting a small number of design partners for the NSCLC model.

What you bring

A Phase II oncology program, either one you are designing now or one you have already completed. For a completed trial, send only what was known before it started and withhold the outcome.

What you get

A modeled design space for your compound: protocol variants ranked by predicted responder rate, a recommended dose and biomarker cutoff, the virtual cohort specification, and the causal chain behind every result. Delivered as a written report your modelers can audit line by line.

Partners shape the model's priorities, and keep everything produced for their compound.

Become a partner

Who is building this

[Founder name]

Co-founder

[The one credential a clinical development lead would care about: mechanistic modeling, oncology clinical development, or ML for scientific computing.]

[Founder name]

Co-founder

[Same. One line, no career summary.]

Causomic
Causomic. Virtual clinical development. hello@causomic.com © 2026