ETHORITY®
People and permissions
Name the process owner, data authority, reviewer and outcome acceptor. Specify the work that may happen and where a human must intervene.
Scientific & Medical AI Innovation
Evaluate AI for a defined research workflow.
Research teams need useful analysis they can trace and review. An impressive demonstration leaves open questions about data rights, reliability and scientific relevance.
The situation
A research-intensive organization is considering an information-analysis or research-support workflow. Scientific usefulness, data permissions and validation matter more than a persuasive demonstration.
What the work examines
With qualified scientific owners, we define the research task, permitted sources, dataset history and evaluation criteria. We compare feasible approaches and document what must be validated. Clinical decisions and regulated deployment require their own specialist review and authorization.
What to measure
Reproducible research steps, traceable sources, qualified review, measured research effort and explicit reliability limits. Clinical benefit is not inferred.
The decision support
Research Factory, source and evidence intelligence, dataset and tool inspection, comparison and a bounded decision/evaluation plan.
Scenario: research support
Can research support return capacity to accepted scientific work?
A research-support workflow can help organise literature, prepare data and produce drafts for scientific review. Its intended use must remain distinct from a diagnostic or clinical system. The scientific owner defines acceptable work, while data and rights authorities decide which sources and processing are permitted. A helpful assistant is not evidence of medical efficacy.
80 research staff × 200 gross hours/year − 4,000 review/rework hours = 12,000 net hours. At 60% destination conversion × EUR85/hour: EUR612,000 annual capacity equivalent. Downside: 80 × 50 − 4,000 = zero net hours.
Annual EUR220,000: research operations/knowledge curation 100,000, tools/data/compute 80,000, maintenance and training 40,000. Setup EUR180,000: integration/validation 110,000, data-rights/evaluation design 50,000, training 20,000.
The scientific owner must define acceptable research outputs and reproducibility; data/rights authorities approve sources, and finance validates usable destination work. No clinical efficacy, diagnostic accuracy or patient benefit is claimed.
The positive model and downside are alternative assumptions, not observed outcomes. Capacity must return to identifiable scientific work that can be accepted by the responsible reviewer. Count the time needed to verify citations, inspect data transformations, reproduce an analysis and correct rejected output. Record changes to the source edition so another qualified person can understand what was done.
A bounded research pilot should specify source rights, permitted data, access, reproducibility, human review and a stop condition. Begin with de-identified or otherwise permitted material under the organisation’s own approvals. Expansion requires evidence for the new workflow and population. A public market profile supplies background about an offering; it cannot approve access to a research dataset or establish suitability for a clinical purpose.
Research support only. No diagnostic accuracy, clinical benefit or authorisation for medical use is claimed.
Define the boundary before a pilot
Evidence and costs
Retain the baseline, case mix, quality threshold, review effort, rework and integration costs. Include a credible non-AI alternative. Released time needs an agreed destination before its value is claimed.
Expansion or stopping
Agree the conditions for a limited test, the evidence needed to expand and the reasons to redesign or stop. A market profile establishes neither workflow suitability nor a customer outcome.
Research support does not establish diagnostic accuracy, clinical benefit or authorisation for medical use. Data rights, scientific validation and regulated deployment require qualified specialist review.