Research reports
Each report below answers one question a BD, search-and-evaluation or R&D strategy team would otherwise spend weeks on: who is working on this target, who runs these trials, which companies hold the delivery technology. They are built from the same harmonised data that sits behind the AcademicLabs platform, and they are free to read in full, with no form and no login.
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: who is developing what, which readouts land in 2027, and where the competitive whitespace sits. 4,264 records analysed across eight types of intelligence. Only 2 of the 32 active or planned studies of novel agents compare directly against immunoglobulin, which is the finding most of the field has not priced in.
63 atopic dermatitis targets scored on evidence and on adoption, from 3,070 AI-analysed patents, publications and projects. The IL-4/IL-13 axis alone holds 330 records and 198 of the 357 clinical-rung publication records. Just 34% of AD-relevant records carry human evidence, and the report names the targets where adoption is running ahead of the data.
Who runs clinical trials in Belgium, where, and on what. 398 trials with Belgian involvement start in 2026; 191 of them run only in Belgium and 174 carry a Belgian sponsor. Broken down by city, sponsor, disease area, phase and partner country, so a site-selection or partnering question can be answered from the page itself.
Getting drugs into the brain: 43 therapeutic biotechs holding brain-delivery patents filed 2021 to 2026, each scored on nine weighted criteria, with CNS and blood-brain-barrier relevance carrying the largest weight at 18%. Seven companies clear the Tier 1 bar, led by Asklepios BioPharmaceutical at 8.9, AC Immune at 8.8 and Alnylam at 8.7.
Every report starts as a query against the AcademicLabs database, which harmonises publications, patents, clinical trials, funded projects, grants, companies and research groups into one connected graph. AI screening narrows the result set to the records that genuinely match the question, the remaining records are analysed individually, and the output is assembled into the report you see. The method, the record counts and the data cut-off are stated on each page, so you can judge the evidence rather than take the conclusion on trust.
The same workflow runs on any target, indication, modality or geography. If you need a landscape on a question that is not covered here, we can usually turn one around quickly.
Request a landscape on your own question·See the platform these come from