Try to kill your target before you fund the next expensive step.

TL;DR: A fixed-scope, five-business-day adversarial review of one biological target or mechanism, ending in an ADVANCE, REWORK, STOP or NOT_EVALUABLE memo.

Biodius is a falsification-first scientific diligence service for biotech teams and investors. We stress-test the evidence behind a biological target or mechanism, collapse non-independent studies, surface contradictions and failed programmes, challenge causal-gene and novelty claims, and identify the cheapest evidence that would actually change the decision.

Send us one target + indication + rationale, or ask for a 20-minute fit call at the same address.

The problem

The expensive mistakes in target work rarely come from a lack of evidence. They come from evidence that looks stronger than it is: multiple papers that share one cohort, a causal chain with one link nobody measured, a striking statistic from a single dataset, a negative result nobody went looking for. By the time those show up, the next expensive step has usually been funded.

Why ordinary AI research is not enough

AI research tools make it fast and cheap to assemble a convincing biological story. That is exactly the risk. Throughput is not truth: a system rewarded for producing plausible hypotheses will produce more of them, and a well-written summary can turn "plausible and not yet disproven" into confidence. What a target decision needs is the opposite job: an attempt to break the story before money is committed to it.

Biodius Target Challenge

The Target Challenge is a fixed-scope adversarial review of one target, pathway or mechanism in one indication. We try to kill it. What survives, what does not, and what cannot be decided from the evidence are all reported, and the review ends in a decision memo, not a summary.

What you send

• one target / pathway / mechanism;
• one indication;
• your current rationale;
• the next decision you are considering.

What you receive

• source/provenance map;
• genetics/causal-gene check where relevant;
• cohort/study independence map;
• contradiction, null and failed-programme register;
• causal-chain audit;
• novelty/prior-art attack;
• independent synthetic expert challenges where appropriate;
• adjudicated source check;
• cheapest discriminating next evidence;
• concise decision memo: ADVANCE | REWORK | STOP | NOT_EVALUABLE.

Two cases from our own tests

We tested this method on ourselves first, prospectively, on public data. Two outcomes show what it is for.

A plausible mechanism that public data could not decide

An AI-generated ulcerative colitis hypothesis survived an initial evidence bar and two adversarial AI reviewers. A frozen human-genetics adjudication then found that its decisive causal link could not be evaluated from lawful public data. The hypothesis was not promoted, and it was not disproven: it was NOT_EVALUABLE. Read the case study.

A striking signal that did not replicate

An unexpected T-cell signal reached PP4 ≈ 0.992 in three gut-resident T-cell groups in a discovery dataset. We sealed that dataset and defined an independent test in advance. The signal did not reproduce in independent public blood T-cell cohorts. Because those cohorts were blood and the discovery cells were gut-resident, this does not prove a tissue-resident effect is false; it shows the signal was single-dataset-only. Read the case study.

How the method works

We prospectively freeze analysis rules before reading decisive outcomes. We deliberately preserve negative, contradictory and not-evaluable results. We distinguish publications from independent cohorts and collapse shared lineages. Independent AI reviewers are tasked with falsifying the case, and their challenges are adjudicated against primary sources. The full method and all four of our prospective experiments are in the technical report, Falsification-First AI for Biological Target Assessment (technical report; not peer reviewed).

Who it is for

• Biotech teams about to commit to a costly next step on a target or mechanism.
• Investors who want an independent, adversarial read of the biology behind an asset before a funding decision.

What we do not claim

Biodius does not provide clinical advice, validate safety or efficacy, perform wet-lab work, or replace legal/patent/regulatory review.

It is experimental scientific diligence tooling. It does not discover drug targets or predict clinical success, it has not been externally validated, and it does not substitute for qualified scientific judgment. Our current commercial hypothesis is that this workflow is useful as scientific diligence before a costly downstream decision. More answers are in the Target Challenge FAQ.

Founding pilot

• 5 business days
• EUR 4,950 excl. VAT
• 3 founding design-partner slots
• fixed scope, subject to a decision-sufficient brief and final contracting route

Start with one target

Send us one target + indication + rationale. We will tell you whether it deserves the next expensive step.

Send us one target + indication + rationale: tell us the target, pathway or mechanism; the indication; your current rationale; and the next decision you are considering.

Prefer to talk first? Ask for a 20-minute fit call at [email protected]. Learn more about First AI Movers.