Benefit — SAP + estimand stance

What Snapshot-grade AI-drift evidence saves your biostats team

Under E8(R1)+E9(R1), an AI-driven representation skew is a quality-by-design + intercurrent-event finding that must be addressed in the SAP + estimand strategy. Catching it early is the difference between a planned sensitivity analysis and a post-hoc scramble.

The three moments where it matters

  1. SAP finalisation. AI-driven patient-group skew is a first-class quality factor the SAP should address prospectively. Independent evidence lets biostats build it in, not bolt it on.
  2. FDA/EMA statistical-review conversation. Reviewer applies the intercurrent-event language of E9(R1) to the observed enrollment mix. Estimand strategy that already handled the skew defends cleanly.
  3. Peer-reviewed publication defense. Journal reviewers increasingly ask about AI-driven eligibility bias. Having the sensitivity analysis + attribution note built in avoids post-acceptance corrigenda.

Dollar frame

Post-hoc SAP amendment cost: a serious SAP amendment driven by unaddressed AI-driven skew typically runs $500K-$3M in biostats + regulatory + external-review time.
Statistical-review pushback: a serious FDA/EMA statistician question can add a review cycle. Cycle cost = weeks-to-months of pivotal-program delay.
Preventive discipline cost: $499 Snapshot. Dated evidence of the skew before SAP finalisation.

Who at your org cares

What "having it" looks like

Green: Snapshot on file. Patient-group-level differential quantified. Sensitivity analysis baked into SAP. Reviewer conversation is about method, not about surprise.
Red: No independent evidence. Skew surfaces post-hoc via reviewer question. SAP amendment + defensive addendum required.

$499. 3 business days.

Dated evidence of AI-driven patient-group skew. Direct input to E8(R1) quality-by-design + E9(R1) estimand strategy.

Buy $499