We focus on Product & Technology Evaluation. For this purpose, we are developing a scoring methodology. It’s especially suitable for biomedical startups, but it can be used as a new evaluation system in broader areas. Some of the assessing points are the following:
1. Approach rooted in evidence-based science
2. References from reputable reviewed journals and other professional literature or White papers
3. Proven track records
4. Background and competencies of the leader/team
5. Company presentation, values, and credibility
6. Track record of possible misleading/deceiving information
7. At least partial verification of the innovation built on existing proven principles
8. Absence of concealment of the basic technical principles of operation due to proprietary information
9. Graphical disclosure of key outcomes
10. Internal technical and overall consistency
11. A balance between current scientific knowledge and business priority (limited exaggeration)
12. Safety, and possible side effects
13. Possible role of placebo or suggestion in the effect
14. Quality of web presentation
15. Quality of presentation’s language and grammar
The structured scoring methodology is based on the points above. Here’s our developed framework for evaluation:
| Category (Max %) | Description | Score (%) |
| 1. Scientific Foundation (20%) | ||
| – Approach Founded on Scientific Facts (5%) | Clear alignment with established scientific principles. | |
| – Peer-Reviewed References (10%) and/or | References in reputable journals and scientific literature. | |
| – White Papers (5%) | Quality and presence of scientific white papers. | |
| 2. Team & Company Credibility (20%) | ||
| – Background and Competency of Author/Team (10%) | Relevant expertise and experience of founders and key team members. | |
| – Company Values & Credibility (5%) | Transparency in values, mission, and industry reputation. | |
| – Track Record (5%) | History of credibility; no misleading or deceptive practices. | |
| 3. Technical Transparency & Intellectual Property (20%) | ||
| – Quantitative Evidence (10%) | Presence of data, graphs, and technical metrics supporting claims. | |
| – Principle Verification (5%) | Evidence of validation through existing, verified approaches. | |
| – Disclosure Limitations Due to IP (5%) | Reasonable disclosure on core technical principles without compromising IP. | |
| 4. Internal Consistency & Scientific Balance (15%) | ||
| – Technical & Consistency (10%) | Logical consistency in technical documentation and claims. | |
| – Exaggeration Gap (5%) | Minimal exaggerations in claims versus current scientific understanding. | |
| 5. Safety & Effectiveness (15%) | ||
| – Placebo/Expectation Effect (10%) | Consideration of placebo or suggestion effects in outcomes. | |
| – Safety & Side Effects (5%) | Clear documentation on safety and potential risks. | |
| 6. Presentation & Communication Quality (10%) | ||
| – Web Presentation (5%) | Clarity, quality, and professionalism of website. | |
| – Language & Grammar Quality (5%) | Professionalism in language, grammar, and overall presentation. |