Define the question
Specify the target, intervention, disease phenotype and development decision.
PROEIDIS ranks the routes a disease can take around a blocked target, before the development strategy is locked.
Follow the reasoning from the blocked target through the ranked escape routes to the supporting biological evidence. Use the analysis to challenge a target strategy, develop a combination rationale and define the next experimental question.
PROEIDIS traces routes that remain available under the modeled intervention and ranks them for scientific review. That brings escape into the discussion before the next development commitment.
Specify the target, intervention, disease phenotype and development decision.
Define the relevant network, evidence sources and model assumptions.
Apply the defined block and trace routes that remain connected to the disease phenotype.
Routes are ranked by expected strength, with the reasoning and evidence for each.
Inspect individual routes and identify hypotheses for experimental testing.
Same inputs, same versioned knowledge state, same configuration — same output.
Follow the reasoning from the ranking through individual routes to the underlying biological network.
Review the biological relationships and supporting sources behind the analysis.
Each ranked route is an explicit mechanistic hypothesis, testable against subsequent experimental or clinical evidence. Ranking does not establish clinical efficacy or the probability of resistance.
Use PROEIDIS to pressure-test a target, connect a proposed combination to a specific escape mechanism and define focused experimental questions. An existing asset can also be the starting point for reviewing these mechanisms.
Current coverage centers on immune and inflammatory signaling.
Clinical and biological expertise informs the questions and model assumptions. Software engineering turns that reasoning into reproducible analysis that scientists can inspect and test.
A ranked set of mechanistic escape hypotheses, with route-level reasoning and supporting biological evidence.
No. It starts from a target and a mode of blockade you already have, and examines the routes that remain available.
Start with the target, intervention and indication. We define the additional biological context and evidence requirements when scoping the analysis.
Yes. The question is the same at any stage: under the modeled intervention, which routes remain?
It can generate and prioritize rational combination hypotheses, each tied to a named escape route. Whether a combination works is for experiments and trials to show.
Yes. Follow the reasoning from the ranking through individual routes to the underlying biological network, alongside the supporting sources.
Yes. Same inputs, same versioned knowledge state, same configuration — same output.
The biological relationships and supporting evidence can be reviewed by scientists. Whether a proposed escape route operates in a particular disease context requires experimental evidence. Computational ranking alone does not validate the hypothesis.
Tell us what you are blocking and what your team needs to decide next.