You get one shot in front of your experts.
Find out what they'll say first.
Pressure-test advisory board content, congress material, and scientific messaging against simulated expert audiences — before it reaches the real ones.
Talk to us about simulated audiencesYour data have one shot at being ready for meaningful discussion
An advisory board deck can be weeks or even months in the making, reviewed internally by people who already know the data inside-out.
We have a good idea of the likely discussion topics, and the questions that might arise, and try to prepare for them in advance. But, a key discussion point can be interpreted very differently depending on location, specialty or even just, profesisonal opinion. Unexpected roadblocks can eat up time that could have been reframed in advance.
Having a cost-effective way to preview the advisory board (or any other content for that matter) give teams a previously unavailable rehearsal step: a structured summary on how a defined set of expert profiles is likely to react to your material, early enough that the answer can still change the material.
How it works
Composite expert personas
Each persona is a defined profile — specialty, practice setting, evidence preferences, known biases, the positions they tend to argue from — grounded in published literature and commentary for that therapy area. A panel is assembled from personas you choose, and can be remixed in minutes.
Your deck, as it will be seen
We ingest your actual material — slides, key questions, or draft narrative — and present it to the simulated personas for their individual feedback, and also their thoughts following discussion with their peers.
Reactions you can compare
Every reaction is returned in the same structure: overall stance, specific objections with severity, points of support, claims flagged as contestable, and open questions. Because the shape is consistent, one persona's response can be compared directly against another's.
Why this isn't just asking a chatbot
Ask a general AI tool to role-play an oncologist reviewing your deck and it will usually tell you the deck is good. Language models tend to converge toward agreeable, majority positions more than real respondents do. Left unaddressed, a chatbot-based panel would eventually collapse into middle-ground consensus.
Everything about how we've built this is designed against that. Personas carry explicit instructions to hold their stated position rather than accommodate the material. Panels are composed for spread, so the interesting output is where personas diverge.
What we're looking for in a good run is rarely unanimous approval. It's a clear picture of where credible experts would part company with your content, and why.
What you get back
Persona-level reaction map
The thoughts of each simulated persona, and discussion output moderated by a digital chairperson.
Objections, ranked by severity
Every objection captured with the persona that raised it and how serious it is — separating the passing methodological quibble from the challenge that could derail a session.
Points of disagreement
Where the panel splits, and along what lines — academic versus community, early adopter versus sceptic. We treat disagreement as the more valuable finding: a report where every persona agrees usually says more about the method than the content.
Flagged claims and open questions
Statements a persona considered overstated, under-evidenced, or ambiguous, plus the questions each profile would want answered. Often the most directly actionable part — these become pre-emptive backup slides.
How we work
Define the panel
We agree the expert profiles that matter for your content — specialties, settings, geographies, and the specific tensions you want represented in the room.
Build and calibrate the personas
Each persona is constructed from published literature and commentary for the therapy area, then scored against known expert reactions before it is used on your content.
Run your content
You send the deck and discussion guide as they stand. We run every slide and question past every persona and collect the structured reactions.
Report and debrief
You receive the reaction map, ranked objections, and points of disagreement — and we walk your team through what to change before the real session. Revised content can be re-run against the same panel.
Simulated audiences don't replace real experts — they change what you bring to them. The point is to arrive at the advisory board having already resolved the avoidable objections, so the time you're paying for goes on the questions only real experts can answer.
Where teams use it
Advisory boards
The original use case. Test the deck and discussion guide before the meeting, so the agenda is built around the questions that will actually generate debate — and the objections you can anticipate are already handled.
Congress and symposium content
Slide decks, posters, and speaker material tested against the profiles who will be in the audience — including the ones most likely to challenge from the floor.
Scientific narrative and messaging
Pressure-test a scientific platform, publication messaging, or launch narrative across divergent expert profiles to find which claims hold up under scrutiny and which need more evidence behind them.
Have something coming up that only gets one attempt?
Tell us what you're preparing and who it's going in front of. We'll walk you through what a simulated audience run would look like, what you'd get back, and when in your timeline it's worth doing.
Talk to us about simulated audiences