Skip to main content
Category

News

“Growing the BioHealth Capital Region of Tomorrow”: BHCR Week 2026 Set for September 15th, 16th, and 17th at USP

By News

BioHealth Capital Region Week will return on September 15 through 17, 2026, at US Pharmacopeia in Rockville, Maryland, bringing together leaders from industry, academia, government, and investment for three days focused on the future of one of the nation’s leading biohealth ecosystems. The event will again feature the BioHealth Capital Region Forum, the Crab Trap Competition, and the Investment Conference.

This year’s Forum theme, “Growing the BioHealth Capital Region of Tomorrow,” reflects both the region’s momentum and the need for continued collaboration at a time when many organizations are navigating a more uncertain funding environment. As public funding conditions shift, the region’s long-term strength will depend on its ability to deepen partnerships, support commercialization, attract investment, and build new pathways for growth. The Forum will serve as a place for those conversations to happen.

Registration for all BioHealth Capital Region Week events will be opening soon. Attendees can expect a strong lineup of programming, networking, and opportunities to connect with the people and organizations shaping the future of biohealth across Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Sponsorship opportunities are also available for organizations that want to be part of the week’s visibility and engagement. Available options include Lead Headliner Sponsorship, which offers top-level recognition throughout the week and the VIP Leadership Dinner, Standard Sponsorship, which includes logo recognition and VIP dinner access, End-of-Day Reception Sponsorship, which adds event-specific recognition during a featured networking reception, VIP Leadership Dinner Sponsorship, which provides recognition for that evening’s key opinion leader gathering and an opportunity to address attendees, and Display Table Sponsorship, which offers an on-site presence in a limited table area positioned near the main flow of activity. Sponsorship support helps make the week’s programming and convening possible.

For more information about sponsorship opportunities, please contact Rich Bendis at rbendis@biohealthinnovation.org  and Andy Eckert at aeckert@biohealthinnovation.org.

Building Georgetown Tech Ventures and Strengthening the Startup Pipeline from Academic Research

By BioTalk with Rich Bendis Podcast, News

How do universities move promising discoveries out of the lab and into the market? In this episode of BioTalk, Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, Vice President of Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization, Christon Hill, Program Manager for Georgetown Tech Ventures, and Jennifer Butler, Entrepreneur-in-Residence with BioHealth Innovation, discuss how Georgetown is building a stronger pipeline from academic science to startup formation. The conversation examines how Georgetown’s commercialization efforts are evolving, how GTV supports faculty founders, and why structured programming, outside expertise, and stronger ecosystem connections matter for turning research into real-world impact.

The discussion also explores the “missing middle” between discovery and commercialization, the role of Entrepreneurs-in-Residence in advancing founders and technologies, and how partnerships among Georgetown, GTV, and BioHealth Innovation are helping to create a more durable and commercially focused innovation pipeline. The guests also reflect on Georgetown’s place within the BioHealth Capital Region and what success will look like as the university continues building a stronger culture of entrepreneurship and company creation.

Listen via your favorite podcast platform:
Apple: https://apple.co/3OjZf7f
Spotify: https://bit.ly/4vyGePd
iHeart: https://ihr.fm/4tfSJ0p
YouTube Podcasts: https://bit.ly/4sCEEZK
TuneIn: https://bit.ly/4mz5j8x

Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant.

Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, Ph.D., is Vice President of Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization, where she leads the university’s efforts to translate research discoveries into real-world impact through licensing, startup creation, and innovation support. Since joining Georgetown in 2023, she has helped expand the university’s commercialization infrastructure, including securing the U.S. Economic Development Administration Build to Scale grant that launched Georgetown Tech Ventures. With more than 20 years of experience in intellectual property, licensing, and business development, she previously served in leadership roles at Rutgers University, where she helped advance major innovation and venture development initiatives. She holds a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and is a Registered Patent Agent.

Christon Hill is Program Manager for Georgetown Tech Ventures in Georgetown University’s Office of Technology Commercialization, where he develops programs, partnerships, and founder support pathways that help move promising research toward venture creation, strategic partnerships, and real-world use. With an interdisciplinary background spanning biotechnology, biology, and the humanities, he brings a practical and market-aware approach to early-stage innovation, with experience in venture development, ecosystem building, and translating complex ideas for investors, partners, and non-technical audiences. He is a graduate of Georgetown’s biotechnology master’s program, a Marine veteran, and a cross-sector operator focused on helping founders and institutions turn strong ideas into credible, actionable opportunities.

Jennifer Butler is a distinguished global commercial executive and strategic leader with nearly 20 years of experience helping biotechnology companies move from early development through commercialization. She serves as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence with BioHealth Innovation and served as Montgomery County’s first Executive-in-Residence, a role created through a collaboration between Montgomery County and BioHealth Innovation to provide technical assistance to local biotech startups. Across her career, she has brought a strong commercial perspective to emerging companies, helping founders sharpen strategy, accelerate development, and navigate the path toward growth and commercialization.

Lisa Johnson, CEO of BioForward Wisconsin, on Building a Biohealth Ecosystem and What Comes Next

By News

What does it take to build a biohealth ecosystem that can compete nationally? In this episode of BioTalk, Lisa Johnson, CEO of BioForward Wisconsin, discusses how Wisconsin helped shape the early use of the term “biohealth” and how that approach has supported the growth of its life sciences sector.

Lisa shares how BioForward connects industry, academia, and government to strengthen the state’s ecosystem, along with key developments that have brought increased attention to the region, including the expansion of Eli Lilly and Company. She also reflects on Wisconsin’s designation as a Biohealth Tech Hub through the U.S. Economic Development Administration and what it means for future growth.

Listen yia your favorite Podcast Platform:
Apple: https://apple.co/427YLEg
Spotify: https://bit.ly/3Q7I2OT 
iHeart: https://ihr.fm/4sr4jVd 
YouTube Music: https://bit.ly/41r37pY
Amazon Music: https://amzn.to/4mmiKZe 
TuneIn: https://bit.ly/424YPVo 

The conversation highlights both momentum and ongoing challenges, particularly around access to early-stage capital and building a stronger pipeline of companies. Lisa outlines what will be required for Wisconsin to continue growing as a competitive biohealth hub.

Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant.

Lisa Johnson is the Chief Executive Officer of BioForward Wisconsin, the state’s member-driven biohealth industry association dedicated to advancing Wisconsin as a global leader in biohealth innovation. In her role, she leads efforts to strengthen the state’s ecosystem by connecting industry, academia, and government partners to support company growth, workforce development, and investment attraction.

Lisa brings extensive experience in economic development, public policy, and industry leadership, with a focus on building collaborative environments that drive regional competitiveness. She has been instrumental in positioning Wisconsin as a recognized biohealth hub, including leading the state’s successful designation as a Biohealth Tech Hub through the U.S. Economic Development Administration. Through her work, she continues to champion initiatives that support emerging companies, expand access to capital, and foster long-term growth across the biohealth sector.

America’s Biggest Startup Exits Show the Power of University-Driven Innovation, including University of Maryland and Georgetown

By News

A recent analysis shared by Ilya Strebulaev, a Stanford professor and a leading voice in venture capital and innovation, offers a useful snapshot of which U.S. universities have been linked to the largest total founder exit values from startup IPOs and acquisitions.

At the top of the list are Stanford University at $415 billion, Harvard University at $326 billion, and MIT at $258 billion. The rankings reflect the combined exit value of companies founded by alumni from each institution, based on exited U.S. unicorns with valid exit values across a large multi-decade dataset.

What makes the list especially interesting is how broadly innovation is distributed. While global brand names are well represented, several universities stand out for performing beyond what many might expect. Public institutions also show strong results, with Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Illinois, UC Santa Barbara, Maryland, Arizona State, and the University of Washington all appearing in the top 25.

For those of us in the BioHealth Capital Region, one point is especially worth noting: the University of Maryland ranks in the top 25 with $56 billion in total founder exit value, and Georgetown University with $46B. That is another reminder that this region is home to institutions with real impact, not only in research and talent development, but also in building companies that create lasting market value.

The full list reinforces something we see every day across the region. Universities are not just centers of education and discovery. They are also engines for commercialization, entrepreneurship, and company creation. When strong research institutions are paired with the right support systems, capital connections, and industry partnerships, the result can be significant economic and innovation outcomes.

We appreciate Ilya Strebulaev for sharing this analysis and helping highlight the role universities play in shaping America’s innovation economy. Please view the original post so readers can explore the full ranking and methodology. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ilyavcandpe_the-universities-behind-americas-biggest-activity-7446982875113246720-3vyE?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAEiF3YBR4X2ycxS417NcZZx7N7BD14MDK4

The SBIR/STTR Program Is Paused. Here’s How to Use the Time.

By News

By Jon Nelson, BHI Director of Client Engagement: The SBIR/STTR program is currently paused pending reauthorization. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. On April 2nd, the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act was presented to the President for his signature. Three different outcomes now lay before us.

  • The President could sign the bill into law.
  • The President may choose to neither sign, nor veto the bill, in which case, the bill will automatically become law on April 14th.
  • The President could veto the bill. In this situation, the bill would return to Congress, where a two-thirds majority would be needed in both houses in order to override the veto.

For companies that have been relying on federal funding as part of their near-term financing strategy, the pause is a genuinely difficult disruption. Plans are delayed, timelines shift, and the natural response is to wait until there is more clarity especially when there are countless other priorities competing for attention. That instinct is understandable. However, the teams that emerge from this period in the strongest competitive position will be the ones that resist it.

While this is the first lapse in the SBIR/STTR program since its inception in the 1980s, other large funding opportunities and federal programs have seen similar pauses. Thus, history is instructive here – when a high-demand funding program goes dark and then reopens, submission volume typically reflects the backlog that accumulated during the gap. Companies that were mid-preparation when the pause began, teams that used the intervening time to get ready, and applicants who hesitated will all enter the queue at roughly the same time.

The result is a more competitive review environment. The bar for what constitutes a competitive proposal is effectively higher than it would be in a typical cycle, and where the difference between a thoughtfully developed application and one that was assembled quickly becomes far more apparent for reviewers to see.

What Good Preparation Actually Looks Like

For most applicants, the limiting factor in a competitive submission is not the quality of the underlying science. It is how clearly the proposal communicates that science to a review panel, how convincingly it is positioned within a credible commercialization strategy, and how clearly the proposal demonstrates that this team, with this approach, at this stage of development, is worth funding. Each of those elements takes longer to develop than most first-time applicants expect, and they each suffer when compressed into the final weeks before a deadline.

A strong commercialization narrative requires that holds up under reviewer scrutiny goes through multiple rounds of drafting and refinement. A technical approach that translates well on the page requires careful editing by individuals who understand both the science and reviewer expectations. A budget that avoids unnecessary scrutiny is one that has been reviewed with agency expectations and common pitfalls in mind.

The best time to do this work is now, before the pressure of an open submission window makes careful development difficult.

Getting the Most Out of the Time Available

Beyond the core proposal materials, there is meaningful preparatory work that is often deferred under deadline pressure. Reviewing and organizing preliminary data, identifying the most relevant solicitations to target when the program reopens, aligning internal stakeholders on project scope and budget, and stress-testing the overall narrative against likely reviewer questions are all tasks that benefit from careful attention that is hard to give them when a submission deadline is just around the corner.

This is also the right time to pursue the relationship-driven components of a strong application. Securing letters of support from key stakeholders, whether from clinical partners, academic collaborators, or potential customers, takes time and follow-up, and letters that are clearly written with care carry more weight with reviewers than ones that read as last-minute requests.

Similarly, identifying and formalizing relationships with contract research organizations or other external partners strengthens both the technical credibility of the proposal and the team’s demonstrated capacity to execute. These conversations take time , and teams that have already invested in them are at a clear advantage in a when the submission window reopens.

Working with BioHealth Innovation

At BioHealth Innovation, we work with early-stage founders and research teams throughout the full proposal development process, from identifying the right funding opportunity to building the commercialization narrative and finalizing technical and budget documents.

Teams that engage early enter submission cycles significantly more prepared. In a competitive environment, that head start can make big difference.

If you are serious about competing when the SBIR/STTR program reopens, the right time to start is now.

Contact us at jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org

AI as a First-Pass Analyst: What It Can (and Can’t) Do for Your Pitch Deck

By News

By Kelly Murphy, BHI Life Sciences Business Strategist and Program Manager

At BioHealth Innovation, we have worked with hundreds of early-stage biohealth founders preparing for investor meetings, and increasingly, we are seeing AI tools enter the preparation process. When used well, AI can function like a “first-pass analyst” to quickly stress-test your narrative, identify gaps, and to help translate complex science into investor-friendly language. But while AI can accelerate early feedback cycles, it is not a substitute for deep domain expertise, investor insight, or strategic judgement that can be provided by experienced entrepreneurs and analysts. Knowing where it adds value and where it falls short is what separates founders who use it effectively from those who are lulled into a false sense of readiness.

What AI Can Do Well

AI excels at structure, clarity, and pattern recognition. For early-stage companies, this can be a major advantage.

First, AI can help ensure your pitch deck tells a coherent story. Many technical founders struggle to translate highly specialized science into a compelling narrative for an investor audience. AI can quickly flag when your problem statement is unclear, your value proposition is buried, or your slides don’t logically flow from unmet need to solution to market opportunity.

Second, AI is effective at benchmarking against common expectations and best practices. While it doesn’t “know” your company, it has been trained on patterns of successful communication. It can suggest whether you’re missing standard components that investors expect to see.

Third, AI can improve readability and tone. It can simplify jargon-heavy language, tighten messaging, and help tailor your pitch for different audiences (e.g., scientific vs. financial stakeholders). For teams preparing multiple versions of a deck with several authors, this can also significantly reduce iteration time and maintain consistency of tone.

Finally, AI can serve as a rapid feedback loop. Founders can get immediate reactions and refine their materials in real time, making subsequent expert feedback more focused and productive.

Where AI Falls Short

Despite these strengths, AI has meaningful limitations, especially in a field as nuanced as biohealth.

Most importantly, AI lacks true domain judgment and cannot assess the credibility of the claims being made. For example, AI may identify that a “clinical plan” slide is missing, but it cannot validate whether the plan itself is viable. For investors who understand the industry, a well-formatted but strategically flawed slide is worse than nothing at all.

AI also struggles with context. It does not understand your specific market dynamics, competitive positioning, or investor landscape. For example, it may suggest adding more market-sizing details without recognizing that your niche indication requires a more nuanced reimbursement or adoption strategy.

Another limitation is overgeneralization. AI often defaults to broadly applicable best practices that are not always strategically appropriate. In some cases, what makes a company compelling is precisely what deviates from the norm and AI may inadvertently steer founders toward a more generic narrative.

Finally, there is a risk of false confidence. A well-written output can give the impression of rigor, even when underlying assumptions haven’t been critically evaluated. AI also tends to compliment the user and encourage any prompt it is given, even if it is not well thought out. This is particularly dangerous when preparing for sophisticated investors who will probe deeply beyond surface-level messaging. A fun way to test this for yourself is to ask AI its thoughts on the worst business idea you can come up with and see how it responds.

Best Practices for Using AI Effectively: A Recommended Workflow

To get the most value from AI as a first-pass analyst, founders should treat it as a starting point and not as a decision-maker.

Step 1: AI-Assisted Drafting: Use AI early in the process to organize your thinking, pressure-test your story, and identify obvious gaps. Be specific in your prompts, for example, ask it to evaluate your deck from the perspective of a life sciences investor or to critique your value proposition based on clinical and commercial criteria. The more targeted the prompt, the more useful the output.

Step 2: Expert Gap Analysis: Layer in human expertise from advisors, mentors and/or consultants to bring the contextual understanding and strategic insight that AI cannot replicate. The goal is to use AI to elevate the quality of your materials so that expert feedback can focus on higher-value issues. These stakeholders can review positioning and help anticipate the questions investors will ask. A deck that has been reviewed by people who have sat on both sides of the table is stronger. At BHI, our role at this stage is to validate the substance beneath the narrative, not just the presentation.

Step 4: Investor mock session. Before your first real meeting, run a mock with someone who can simulate investor questions by probing your assumptions, challenging your data, and  identifying non-obvious areas of improvement. AI cannot do this, but experienced specialists such as BHI’s entrepreneurs-in-residence and analysts can.

Throughout this process, remain critical of the output. Not all suggestions by AI will be relevant, and some may even dilute your differentiation or flatten nuance on complicated topics. Use AI as a tool to expand your perspective but rely on your team’s judgment to make final decisions.

The Bottom Line

AI is a powerful tool for improving the efficiency and clarity of early-stage pitch development. As a first-pass analyst, it can help founders move faster, communicate more effectively, and prepare more polished materials. But in biohealth, where scientific validity, clinical strategy, and market nuance are paramount, AI is only one piece of the puzzle. The strongest pitch decks we’ve seen at BHI combine innovative technologies with deep scientific expertise and strategic storytelling. AI can help you get there faster but it can’t get you there alone.

Work with BHI on Your Pitch Strategy

BioHealth Innovation supports early-stage biotech and medtech companies through go-to-market strategy, market analysis, and investor readiness. If you’re preparing for a fundraising round and want expert eyes on your pitch, beyond what AI can offer, we’d welcome the conversation.

Contact us at kmurphy@biohealthinnovation.org and jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org

AI in Grant Writing: Where it Helps and Where it Hurts

By EIR Insights, News

By Catherine Leasure, Ph.D., BHI Life Sciences Business Strategist – If you’ve written a grant recently, you’ve probably wondered whether AI could make the process easier. Maybe you’ve already tried it. The honest answer is that AI can help, but how much depends entirely on what you bring to it. When you know what you’re doing, it gets you to a solid draft faster. However, without a strong grasp of the process behind it, it can produce polished-sounding text that misses the mark in ways that aren’t always obvious until a reviewer or experienced grant writer points them out.

Where AI Earns Its Keep

The tasks where AI performs best are the ones that are time-consuming but relatively mechanical. Generating a document outline that accounts for both grant requirements and your specific project content is a good example. What might take an hour of cross-referencing a funding opportunity announcement can be done in minutes with the right prompt. From there, AI can help turn that outline into a working first draft and translate dense technical language into plain descriptions for non-specialist reviewers, which is particularly useful when generating ancillary documents like abstracts or project summaries that need to be accessible to a broad audience.

AI also shines in the later stages of drafting. Grant applications are long documents, and inconsistencies are easy to overlook when you’ve been working on the proposal for weeks or months. Terminology that shifts between sections that were written by different people, early claims that aren’t fully supported later in the document, and overly wordy sentences are all the kinds of issues that AI excels at catching and fixing. It can also serve as a compliance checker, making sure required sections are present and that the structure of your application matches what the solicitation requires.

None of this replaces the thinking that goes into a competitive application. But it does free up time and mental energy for the parts that require it.

Where AI Falls Short

The same confidence that makes AI useful in the drafting process can work against you when the content and strategy require nuance. AI can misrepresent novel technologies, fabricate citations, or produce technically plausible descriptions that are subtly wrong (this is called hallucinating). For early-stage companies with innovative science, this is a real risk. AI can only work with what you give it. If you’re not providing detailed, accurate information about your technology and approach, it will fill in the gaps on its own, and not always correctly. You need someone who actually understands the technology both guiding the prompts and reviewing anything AI generates before it goes into your final draft.

Beyond accuracy, there’s a layer of strategic knowledge that AI doesn’t have access to. It can’t tell you how a program officer has been framing their priorities in recent conversations, what a review panel tends to weigh most heavily, or whether your project is actually a good fit for a particular solicitation before you invest time writing your proposal. That kind of information comes from reaching out to and meeting with program officers before you submit. These conversations can reshape an application in ways that no AI tool can replicate.

Then there’s the writing itself. Even the best prompts can produce text that experienced reviewers recognize immediately: sentence structures like “it’s not X, it’s Y,” excessive adjectives, and the overuse of certain punctuation are all patterns that show up repeatedly in AI-generated text. Beyond the stylistic tells, AI tends toward a kind of confident vagueness that sounds thorough but doesn’t actually say much. In competitive grant programs, that kind of generic writing loses. If AI contributes to any part of your draft, it’s the grant writer’s job to make sure the final product sounds like it was written by a real person. Reviewers who are engaged with your writing are more likely to be engaged with your science.

Finally, using AI to write your grant poses a potential confidentiality risk that often goes overlooked. When you paste proprietary information about your technology into a public AI tool, that content may be used to train the model, and there is no guarantee it will stay private. Details about your innovation could potentially surface in someone else’s results! Treat any public AI tool the way you would any other unsecured channel: don’t put anything in that you wouldn’t be comfortable sharing publicly.

Agency Guidance on AI Use

Some funding agencies have begun addressing AI use in applications directly. NIH, for example, recently issued guidance stating that applications that are substantially developed by AI will not be considered original ideas of the applicant, and that the NIH employs AI detection tools to identify AI-generated content (NOT-OD-25-132). Applications found to be in violation post-award can face serious consequences, including cost disallowance, grant suspension, or termination. The NSF has taken a slightly more lenient approach, requesting that proposers disclose whether AI tools were used when preparing an application. The NIH and the NSF are not alone in scrutinizing AI use, and it is reasonable to expect other agencies to follow suit as AI use becomes more widespread.

The Bottom Line

AI is a useful tool in the grant writing process, but it works best as a starting point, not a final product. The applications that score well aren’t necessarily the ones with the smoothest prose, they’re the ones that demonstrate a clear understanding of the funding landscape, make a compelling scientific case, and show reviewers that the team behind the project knows what they’re doing. That requires expertise that no prompt can substitute for.

Used effectively, AI can get you to a better draft faster. But knowing how to use it thoughtfully, and knowing when not to rely on it, is itself a skill.

Work with Us

At BHI, we work with clients from the earliest stages of identifying the right funding opportunity through grant submission, including helping determine where AI can speed up the process and where it needs to be set aside in favor of human expertise. Our grant writers have supported over 200 applications, helping clients secure $66M in non-dilutive funding. If you’re working on a grant application and want to make sure you’re using every tool available without sacrificing the quality of your submission, we’d love to talk.

Prolight reports positive Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) biomarker results with BRAINBox Solutions, confirming broad assay potential of the Psyros™ POC platform

By News

Prolight Diagnostics, a leader in point-of-care (POC) technology, today announces positive results from a collaboration with BRAINBox Solutions, a leader in multi-modality diagnostic and prognostic tests for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The analytic evaluation shows strong performance across a unique combination of three traumatic brain injury biomarkers, demonstrating the ease with which multiple novel markers can be transferred onto the Psyros unique
single-molecule-counting platform and reinforcing its potential to improve patient care for broad clinical use. 

The findings align with earlier pre‑clinical data demonstrating Psyros’ ability to deliver laboratory‑grade performance, detecting biomarkers at extremely low concentrations within minutes using only a small sample. The study was fully funded by BRAINBox, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.

Building on these results, Prolight and BRAINBox will now advance to the next phase of the BRAINBox‑funded programme, evaluating all three assays using a 260-patient sample bank. The samples are a subset of the more than 2000 available from BRAINBox’s ongoing, HeadSMART II pivotal clinical study of its diagnostic and prognostic test for mild TBI, BRAINBox TBI, to support submission to the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing clearance. The assay format uses Psyros’ multiplex‑enabled, dried‑reagent cartridge, supporting scalable, low‑cost manufacturing – an important advantage in TBI and other conditions requiring high-precision, multi‑analyte testing.

“We are very encouraged by the outcomes of this first assay evaluation with BRAINBox. The data reinforce the versatility of the Psyros platform and its ability to support multiple assay formats. With BRAINBox now fully funding the next 260‑patient assay study, we see strong validation of Psyros’ unique market potential,” said Ulf Bladin, CEO of Prolight Diagnostics. “In parallel, Prolight remains fully focussed on delivering our high-sensitivity troponin test, as we gear up for the clinical performance study.”

”We have been actively seeking a point-of-care platform capable of delivering the ultra-sensitive performance required for our multimodality TBI test suite of products which can support our broad strategy for diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring in all care environments across our patent protected full neurology test pipeline. These early results from this recently established collaboration suggest that the Psyros system meets – and may even exceed – our performance expectations and potentially accelerate the development and commercialization of our tests. The ability to measure multiple TBI biomarkers within minutes at the point-of-care has the potential to meaningfully enhance real-world assessment and clinical decision-making in
brain-injury care. We look forward to progressing to the next phase of our collaboration,” said Donna Edmonds, CEO of BRAINBox.

Prolight continues to attract growing interest from global diagnostics companies, supported by Psyros’ competitive advantages: unprecedented detection limits, whole‑blood capability, rapid turnaround time, multiplex functionality and low-cost manufacturing.

About Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 
TBI is increasingly recognized as a major global health challenge and a rapidly emerging market for diagnostic innovation, particularly for rapid point-of-care (POC) testing. The clinical challenge with TBI is that even mild brain injury can have serious long term clinical consequences, mild TBI diagnostics require high sensitivity to reliably detect injury and safely identify patients who may require further imaging or intervention.

With an estimated 69 million people worldwide experiencing a TBI each year, driven by road traffic accidents, falls, sports injuries, and military trauma, there is growing demand for highly sensitive tests that can deliver rapid results in emergency departments, ambulances, urgent care centers, sports settings, and other frontline care environments, which include a growing number of concussion clinics.

The global TBI diagnostics market is currently valued at approximately USD 3–3.4 billion, with forecasts projecting growth to around USD 6 billion or more by 2032–2033 as awareness, clinical guidelines, and biomarker technologies advance. As awareness has increased, so has the demand for rapid and portable testing solutions, with increasing adoption of blood-based biomarker tests an opportunity is emerging for POC diagnostics to enable faster triage, helping to reduce reliance on costly CT scans.

As healthcare systems seek faster and more cost-effective ways to triage patients with suspected head injury, POC TBI testing represents a significant emerging segment within this multibillion-dollar market, with strong potential for adoption across emergency medicine, sports medicine, military medicine, and pre-hospital care worldwide.

About BRAINBox Solutions
BRAINBox Solutions is developing the first AI‐enabled, multi‐modality approach for the diagnosis and prognosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, commonly referred to as a concussion. The company seeks to establish a clinical best‐practice standard for the diagnosis and prognosis of concussion.

The product incorporates a panel of proprietary, patented blood biomarkers that can be read in a few moments on a point‐of‐care instrument or using standard laboratory systems, as well as neurocognitive testing, to provide a single‐system score that measures the severity of the injury and post-concussive symptoms. BrainBox is currently completing a pivotal clinical study, the HeadSMART II clinical trial, which is evaluating the diagnostic and prognostic potential of BrainBox TBI in more than 2000 patients. The company is led by key physician and scientific thought leaders in the field and an experienced, clinically focused management team. For more information please see: https://brainboxinc.com/

BHI EIR Insights: 7 Tactics to Optimize Launch Messaging – Part VI

By EIR Insights, News

by Jonathan Kay, MPP, Managing Partner, Health Market Experts & BioHealth Innovation, Inc. Entrepreneur-in-Residence

To recap, the first 5 posts of our series covered:

  1. Test, Don’t Guess: Adopt a data-driven mindset about messaging impact
  2. Know Your Stakeholders: Avoid a one-size-fits-all approach
  3. Listen First: What are  your stakeholders saying and how?
  4. Message Anatomy: Ensure messages get the job done
  5. Measuring Success: Define metrics of success upfront

Insight 6: Just Start

It’s true we want to pursue all 5 tactics above. But that doesn’t mean we always can.  Sometimes clients or would-be clients insist:

  • Time is too limited, so they can’t test
  • The target audience is rare or ultra rare, so they can’t test

🛑 Hold on! Don’t skip testing even in these situations. As the saying goes, Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.(That’s typically attributed to surgeons!🥼)

Real-world problems require real-world problem-solving. To know in advance how well your messages will perform, ask real-world stakeholders. Even if time is extremely limited. Even if audiences seem too hard-to-reach. (We can help you in both cases. While we encourage clients to have a launch runway and notify us in advance, typically we can line up test audiences in a day or two, or faster!)

Testing messages BEFORE launch can improve early uptake 📈, increase commercial success, and save time and budget later. It can help you avoid unnecessary stress.

✅ Rather than skip testing, “just start” testing by modifying the ideal and going with what is realistic. Here are a few ideas:

  • Fewer interviews
  • Shorter survey
  • Leverage Gen AI (more to come in Tactic #7)
  • Plan ahead: put message testing in your launch plan

When a client was preparing to launch a genetic marker for a rare disease, they approached us to test physician ad concepts and messages. They faced two familiar constraints in biotech launches:

  1. Limited time
  2. A small, hard-to-reach physician population

One more traditional approach might have been to test messages → share feedback with client and creative agency → agency modifies concepts → ideally we test again to optimize. Instead, we compressed the process and reduced the timeline by days, possibly a week. (How great would it be to save a week when getting ready for launch?)

How did we do that?

  • We reduced the number of stakeholder interviews.
  • We prioritized metrics like stopping power, visceral response, clinical credibility
  • Importantly, we invited the agency into the testing process.

Bringing the agency in allowed for agile development. As the interviews progressed, the concepts evolved, and we moved closer and closer to optimal with each next test.

The results were telling, actionable, and valuable even with a small sample. We confirmed a key hypothesis, which added confidence to the commercial strategy. We also revealed confusing language about the biomarker that we easily fixed to avoid encountering post-launch confusion, questions, and delayed product adoption.

The key takeaway: When launching a business or a brand or a campaign, perfect conditions are rare. But even limited testing can uncover powerful insights, reduce risk, and strengthen confidence before your message reaches the market.

If your organization is preparing to launch a new business or brand, connect with us (message me on LinkedIn) or visit https://www.healthmarketexperts.com/ to learn more about how we can help you with messaging and commercial strategy to set your business and brand on a path of success.

Written by a human. This post expands on content I previously wrote as a blog at Catalant and delivered in guest lectures at Rutgers Business School.

Visit https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-kay-healthcare/ to connect with Jon on LinkedIn.

Thanking Jarrod Borkat and Rachel Rath for Their Service on the BioHealth Innovation Board

By News

BioHealth Innovation extends its sincere thanks to Jarrod Borkat, Chief Commercial and Strategy Officer at On Demand Pharmaceuticals, and Rachel Rath, Head of JLABS @ Washington DC, for their dedicated service on the Board of Directors.

Throughout their tenure, both leaders brought a steady, thoughtful presence to the board and helped strengthen the organization’s role within the BioHealth Capital Region. Their perspectives, grounded in deep industry experience and regional engagement, supported informed decision-making and reinforced a shared commitment to advancing innovation across the ecosystem.

Jarrod Borkat’s career spans senior commercial, strategy, and partnership roles across the biopharmaceutical sector. His experience building large-scale collaborations among industry, academia, and government brought practical insight to board discussions, particularly around commercialization pathways and cross-sector engagement. His long-standing involvement in the region reflects a consistent belief in collaboration as a foundation for sustainable growth.

During his time with MedImmune and AstraZeneca, Jarrod played a key role in advancing the BioHealth Capital Region (BHCR) brand and strengthening its national profile. He was also a strong advocate for BioHealth Innovation expanding its footprint into Washington, DC, and Virginia, helping foster a more integrated regional ecosystem. In addition, he served on the Board’s Executive Committee, where his strategic perspective supported organizational growth and transition.

Rachel Rath provided a complementary lens shaped by her leadership at one of the region’s most active innovation platforms. Her work evaluating and accelerating early-stage companies, along with prior experience supporting national health security and clinical research initiatives, informed the board’s understanding of emerging technologies and the needs of founders navigating complex development environments.

“Jarrod and Rachel have been exceptional board members and trusted partners,” said Rich Bendis, Founder, President, and CEO of BioHealth Innovation. “Their leadership, insight, and commitment to the BioHealth Capital Region have made a lasting impact. We are grateful for their service and for the time and expertise they so generously shared.”

BioHealth Innovation wishes both leaders continued success and looks forward to their ongoing contributions to the region’s innovation community.

Search

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

BioHealth Innovation will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.