Healthcare
Research and clinical-adjacent organisations work with genomic, epidemiological and patient-adjacent data that cannot leave the institution and cannot be acted on without expert review. This page sets out how such a workflow would be planned and run on inTheEU Assist, not a record of a completed deployment.
Where Assist fits in the workflow
Institutional data (genomic records, epidemiological datasets, patient-adjacent case material) would be ingested and indexed on premises, feeding a knowledge pack scoped to the institution's own tenant. No document or dataset crosses into any other tenant on the platform.
An agent configured for the workflow would propose candidate signals, findings, or risk flags from that knowledge base, each one tied to a specific case or dataset and entered with a status of proposed. Nothing is treated as established, and nothing reaches a patient record or a published finding, until a named clinician or researcher reviews and signs off on it.
Human authority and operating boundaries
Every stage that produces a flag, a summary, or a recommendation would require explicit approval before the next stage opens. This is not a policy layered on top of the workflow. It is the mechanism by which the workflow proceeds at all: an unapproved stage simply does not execute the next step.
A first bounded pilot
A practical first deployment would use one department, one defined document class or study workflow, a limited set of approved institutional sources, and named clinical or research reviewers. Assist would prepare a source-linked summary, comparison, chronology, evidence table, or candidate issue list inside the institution's controlled infrastructure. It would not diagnose, prescribe, alter a patient record, or make an autonomous clinical decision.
The institution would choose the success criteria. Useful measures include preparation time, source coverage, reviewer corrections, unsupported statements caught before approval, consistency across repeated cases, and the completeness of the resulting decision record. The purpose is to test operational value on the institution's own material, not to claim clinical validity from a generic benchmark.
What is available for a pilot
Document ingestion, reviewed extraction, case- or study-scoped knowledge, bounded workflow execution, proposed-to-approved review, controlled knowledge reuse, and traceable execution records are working parts of the platform. What is not supplied as an off-the-shelf claim is clinical authority or a universal genomic, epidemiological or diagnostic model. Domain judgement remains with the institution's clinicians and researchers, while any specialised capability is configured with their approved material and rules.
Some of the architecture underlying this capability set is documented in filings still in progress. This page describes what the platform is designed to do, at a level appropriate for planning a pilot, not an implementation specification.
Bring one controlled workflow
If your team can identify one recurring document or research workflow, its approved sources, named reviewers and prohibited actions, we can assess its fit for a bounded on-premises pilot. Discuss the workflow and its success criteria →
Platform features and interface are subject to continuous improvement. Descriptions in this guide may not reflect the exact layout or wording of the latest released version.