EP9 Method Comparison beta evaluation

Modern method comparison workflows for clinical laboratories.

Clinical Analytics OS is evaluating a focused, saved-run EP9 Method Comparison workflow with laboratory professionals.

The current evaluation scope is EP9 Method Comparison with paired-data import, backend-authoritative analysis, plots, and downloadable PDF reports.

Current evaluation scope

  • Authenticated EP9 Method Comparison saved-run workflow
  • Backend-authoritative analysis and current-result enforcement
  • Review-only plots, interpretation, and PDF output

Method comparison work is still too manual.

Clinical laboratory teams often rely on spreadsheets, manual plotting, repeated formatting, and scattered documentation to complete validation and verification studies.

Data preparation

Lab exports often require column cleanup, mapping, and repeated formatting before analysis can begin.

Analysis and plots

Bias calculations, regression, scatter plots, and bias plots are often assembled across disconnected tools.

Report preparation

Review-ready reports require consistent acceptance criteria, interpretation, plots, and documentation.

Evaluation capabilities

The current beta evaluation is limited to EP9 Method Comparison.

EP9 Method Comparison

  • Mapped CSV upload
  • Mapped XLSX upload
  • Method A and Method B column mapping
  • Bias, regression, and plot outputs

Cloud reports and API

  • Downloadable PDF reports
  • Render-hosted FastAPI backend
  • Vercel-hosted frontend
  • Prototype safety disclaimers

Designed for laboratory validation workflows

Clinical Analytics OS is being designed for laboratory professionals involved in validation, verification, and clinical analytics workflow modernization.

Method comparison

Support for structured EP9-style comparison of instrument or method results.

Verification studies

Designed around repeatable data import, analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

Documentation

Generate consistent reports that show the result, criteria, plots, and warnings.

Demo resources

Use these safe, synthetic files and guides to run a repeatable Clinical Analytics OS demo without PHI, patient identifiers, or production clinical data.

Open live workspace

Use the live workspace to access workflow-specific synthetic demo data and run saved analyses.

Open Workspace

Workflow-specific demo data

Demo data is provided inside the workspace where it is used, starting with EP9 Method Comparison.

Go to EP9 Workspace

Guided demo request

Request a walkthrough of the EP9 Method Comparison evaluation using safe synthetic data.

Request Guided Demo

Design partner feedback

Share workflow feedback to help shape validation, verification, and reporting features.

Share Feedback

Demo overview

Public overview of what the live demo shows, how to evaluate it, and what feedback is useful.

View Overview

Interested in early access?

We are looking for feedback from laboratory professionals involved in validation, method comparison and laboratory validation workflows.

Request Early Access

CAOS EP9 Beta implements selected method-comparison procedures informed by CLSI EP09-Ed3. It does not claim complete CLSI EP09 conformance or CLSI endorsement.

CAOS EP9 Beta may be used only with synthetic data or other data that the user is explicitly authorized to use and that is nonconfidential. Do not enter patient identifiers, PHI, confidential employer data, confidential laboratory data, clinical production data, or data for regulated production use.

CAOS EP9 Beta is invitation-only evaluation software for EP9 Method Comparison and requires review by qualified laboratory personnel. It is not a clinical decision system, a regulatory validation or approval, a production quality-management system, or a complete CLSI EP09 implementation. CAOS does not determine clinical acceptability or certify study adequacy, sample size, or concentration distribution. Aggregate percent bias, mean-bias confidence intervals, and Deming regression are withheld.

Criteria outcomes compare raw canonical analytical values with the attributable criteria configured for this saved experiment. They do not determine clinical acceptability or certify study adequacy.