Header: John Peabody founded the medical consultancy QURE. In 2021, they published a paper on diagnostic startups, successes and failures, in "BMJ Innovations."
##
John Peabody MD founded the consultancy QURE (later acquired, still active).
I stumbled across an interesting 2021 paper of his - find the article online here. (Firewall). For the BMJ Innovations journal home page - here.
I clip the title and abstract below. One of the coauthors, Mickey Urdea, revisited in 2023. See a 45 minute vlog.
##
Postmortems on diagnostic testing start-ups:
Reports of commercial successes and failures and the case of the Zombie life science company.
Abstract
Background From 2014 to 2017, more than 1000 diagnostic companies were launched, securing more than US$10 billion in investment.
Methods We performed an in-depth exploration of 28 diagnostic companies to differentiate successful and failed startups, plus a third ‘Zombie’ state where companies have achieved financial solvency but without long-term viability.
Results From these data, we created a five-phase, 13-item framework indicating the corporate health of a diagnostic company as it progresses from conception to commercialisation. We found 6 successful companies, 14 failures and 8 Zombies. On a scale of 0–26 points (two points per item), successful companies averaged 24.5 points (range 22–26), failures averaged 4.5 (range 0–16) and Zombies averaged 12.3 (range 3–23) (p<0.001).
To determine if there was any predictivity to this framework, we looked at only the first two phases (concept and feasibility/planning) of progress and found a distinct gradient in success potential based solely on these first two phases.
Conclusion Our five-phase framework generated a score that could predict diagnostic companies more likely to successfully and sustainably enter the market from those more likely to fail.
###
Take-home lesson, reading the business features left to right across the five columns, successes had mostly "green lights" as seen in the top rows. Failures had lots of "red lights" (bottom rows).
###
Not too surprisingly, QURE, which focused on helping startups with early commercial planning, found that higher quality early commercial planning was important. (I focus on some of the same in a 2024 white paper on valuation and due diligence for genomics, here).
I also looked up the QURE paper at Semantic Scholar, a free resource.. This provides an interesting feature for every article - TLDR - which means "Too Long Didn't Read," essentially a 1-sentence summary of every paper it hits. The webpage at Semantic Scholar for the paper should be here. And this is the automatic TLDR:
- TLDR- "An in-depth exploration of 28 diagnostic companies to differentiate successful and failed startups, plus a third ‘Zombie’ state where companies have achieved financial solvency but without long-term viability. Generated a five-phase, 13-item framework indicating the corporate health of a diagnostic company as it progresses from conception to commercialisation."
Semantic Scholar lets you save the hit in a private library, get code to input into reference managers, etc.
###
AI CORNER
I ran the PDF through Perplexity.ai. (More on Perplexity).
Summary?
The paper titled "Postmortems on diagnostic testing start-ups: reports of commercial successes and failures and the case of the Zombie life science company" by Peabody et al. (2021) explores the outcomes of 28 diagnostic companies, categorizing them as successful, failed, or in a 'Zombie' state. The study presents a five-phase framework to assess the corporate health of diagnostic companies from conception to commercialization. Successful companies scored high across all phases, while failures lacked in meeting key criteria. Notably, failures often stemmed from issues like inadequate market understanding, technical barriers, or lack of clinical utility evidence. The study emphasizes the importance of thorough planning, market understanding, and meeting clinical requirements for successful diagnostic startups
Main Argument?
The main argument of the paper "Postmortems on diagnostic testing start-ups: reports of commercial successes and failures and the case of the Zombie life science company" by Peabody et al. (2021) is to present a comprehensive framework consisting of five phases and 13 items to evaluate the corporate health of diagnostic companies from inception to commercialization. The study aims to differentiate successful companies, failed startups, and those in a 'Zombie' state, where companies achieve financial solvency but lack long-term viability. By analyzing 28 diagnostic companies, the paper demonstrates that successful companies scored significantly higher across all phases compared to failures and Zombies. The framework developed in the study can predict which diagnostic companies are more likely to enter the market successfully and sustainably, highlighting the importance of strategic planning, market understanding, and meeting clinical requirements for the success of diagnostic startups
Key Findings?
The key findings of the paper "Postmortems on diagnostic testing start-ups: reports of commercial successes and failures and the case of the Zombie life science company" by Peabody et al. (2021) are as follows:
- The study analyzed 28 diagnostic companies and categorized them into successful companies, failed startups, and those in a 'Zombie' state.
- A five-phase, 13-item framework was developed to assess the corporate health of diagnostic companies from conception to commercialization.
- Successful companies scored significantly higher across all phases compared to failures and Zombies, with an average score of 24.5 out of 26.
- Failures often stemmed from issues such as inadequate market understanding, technical barriers, or lack of clinical utility evidence.
The framework created in the study could predict which diagnostic companies are more likely to enter the market successfully and sustainably, emphasizing the importance of strategic planning, market understanding, and meeting clinical requirements for the success of diagnostic startups
Weaknesses? Next steps?
The weaknesses of the paper "Postmortems on diagnostic testing start-ups: reports of commercial successes and failures and the case of the Zombie life science company" by Peabody et al. (2021) include:
- The study's sample size is relatively small, analyzing only 28 diagnostic companies, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
- The paper does not provide detailed information on the specific characteristics or profiles of the companies analyzed, which could enhance the depth of the analysis.
- The study focuses on diagnostic companies in a specific timeframe (2014-2017), potentially limiting its relevance to current or future trends in the industry.
Good next steps for this research could involve:
- Conducting a larger-scale study involving a more extensive sample of diagnostic companies to increase the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
- Including more detailed case studies or profiles of the companies analyzed to provide a richer understanding of the factors contributing to success, failure, or 'Zombie' states.
- Extending the analysis to include diagnostic companies from a broader timeframe to capture evolving trends and dynamics in the industry.
These steps could further enhance the insights provided by the study and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing the success or failure of diagnostic startups
As a Haiku?
Diagnostic startups,
Success, failure, Zombie states,
Framework predicts fate.
