Investment logic
We define the problem, user, available data, risk and measurable result before selecting technology.
NPNT · AI and digital systems for biotechnology
AI systems for biotech, medicine and production
We help biotechnology leaders and investors turn an industry problem into a verifiable digital product—from architecture and pilot to implementation and support.
27 projectsResident of Sirius INTC
About NPNT
From an investment thesis to an operating system
NPNT connects domain expertise, product architecture and engineering execution. Every first stage has a bounded environment and a continuation criterion.
Flagship development
Four systems defining NPNT’s next stage
We show operating structures, their current stage and the next verifiable step—not showcase promises.
View all projects →01Product / initiative
Medical AI · исследовательская инфраструктура
Clinical Trial Digital Ecosystem
A shared environment for patients, investigators, coordinators, sponsors and research sites.
Practical contribution
Creates a more transparent clinical-research workflow across protocol, communication, site status and quality.
02Digital project
Этическая экспертиза · документы · процессный контроль
LEC Workspace · LEC AI
Digital support for ethics review: document versions, deadlines, meetings, conflicts of interest, reports and modules for experts and research teams. NPNT is developing the project together with Yandex.
Practical contribution
Turns fragmented emails and files into a traceable ethics-review workflow while authorised committee members retain the decision.
03Product / initiative
Промышленный AI · биотех · фарма · foodtech
PROMCYCLE AI
A platform for applying AI to biotech, pharma, cosmetics and food production—from line data to a controlled pilot.
Practical contribution
Helps leaders locate process losses, define an AI-assisted action and prove value with an agreed KPI.
04Product / initiative
Навигация пациентов · клинические исследования
MIKA.help
An information-navigation platform helping people with cancer find clinical trials and prepare the next route towards a research centre since 2016.
Practical contribution
Reduces the information gap between a complex protocol and a safe next step while professionals retain decisions.
NPNT news
What is happening across the projects
Real stages, clearly labelled: expert review, hypothesis testing, bounded pilots and the next validation criteria.
Not Instead: six steps for checking cancer-treatment claims
Not Instead is an educational catalogue about folk and complementary methods used in cancer care. Its published methodology describes six steps for examining claims; the pages show an update date of 20 August 2026. The process starts by stating the exact claim and intended goal: treating a tumour, supporting symptoms, quality of life and prevention require different evidence. It then proposes looking for clinical guidelines, systematic reviews and human studies; checking safety and interactions separately; verifying the status of a product or method; and publishing limitations. Laboratory findings are labelled as hypotheses, not established effects in patients. The practical purpose is to help readers turn promotional language into a question they can discuss with their care team. The catalogue explicitly says it is not a ranking: a method’s presence is not a recommendation or endorsement. The project is educational; it does not prescribe treatment or determine whether a method is suitable for an individual. Medical decisions should be discussed with the treating professional. This information does not replace medical advice.
Read update →AI·SPB: assessing autonomy scenario by scenario
AI·SPB publishes a concept for an experimental legal regime covering narrowly defined medical AI scenarios. Its page identifies working version 0.3, dated 19 August 2026, and states that the EPR has not launched and is not an official project of the Government of Saint Petersburg. The concept lists ten distinct clinical candidates and a 48-month evaluation path across stages A0–A4, from an assistive prompt to a potentially legally significant action. These are scenarios for assessment, not a list of autonomous services already permitted. Each use would separately require evidence, a registered product, an operator, a clinical site and a legal pathway. Uncertainty is routed to a human. The practical value is a structured discussion of permission by task, system version and control conditions, with refusal, escalation, measurable outcomes and stop criteria defined in advance. The publication describes a concept; it does not itself authorize autonomous action. Reduced time, less harm or improved outcomes are aims to evaluate, not confirmed effects. Every scenario needs its own legal, clinical and technical assessment.
Read update →CGA Online: a professional workflow with a private session
The CGA Online workspace structures a professional comprehensive geriatric assessment. Its public page lists 16 sections, more than 100 fields and an estimated 35–50 minutes. The workflow covers a person’s context and goals, functional and physical measures, red flags, a problem list and a team plan. Answers remain in the open tab’s memory, are not sent to the operator and are not stored in localStorage; closing or refreshing the page removes entered information. The confirmed status is a professional protocol, version 1.0. The methodology states that the tool has not yet undergone independent validation and is intended to support documentation and clinical discussion until prospective evaluation. Its practical value is to bring observations into one working structure, reveal incomplete areas and prepare multidisciplinary discussion with named responsibilities and reassessment. The service does not diagnose, prescribe or discontinue medication, or replace examination or the clinical team’s decision. Completeness, agreement between professionals, usability and effects on outcomes that matter to patients require separate studies; this version alone does not establish clinical benefit.
Read update →A bounded first stage
Describe the problem—we will outline the architecture of the first step
An initial assessment does not require medical records, trade secrets or a data dump. Process context and the intended outcome are enough.
- 01The process, product or audience that needs to change
- 02The data or materials already available
- 03Who owns the decision and which criterion will define success
Our first reply will clarify the process, available data, accountable specialist and success criterion. We will then propose a bounded first stage with an indicative timeline and budget.
Describe the problem →