Skip to content
Clarrio.ai

Customers · CROs

Longitudinal research data for CROs across study sites

Bring continuous patient data into the studies you run, without changing the sponsor protocol.

Request a demo

Sound familiar?

  • Sponsors ask for more real-world data
  • Site burden keeps rising
  • Patient retention is hard
  • Data arrives in silos

How Clarrio.ai helps

Longitudinal data workflows for cros

Runs alongside your operations

No change to the sponsor protocol

Worldwide sites

Center-agnostic deployment

Patient app

Structured PROs and passive data

Harmonized datasets

One record per patient

Benefits for you

Pick your role and see what changes

The same record is shown differently to each person in your team.

Today

  • – Tracks ePRO compliance in vendor spreadsheets
  • – Hears about burden from sites after it causes dropout
  • – Juggles different tools per study

With Clarrio.ai

  • + Sees completion by site, arm and week in one view
  • + Gets early notice of falling engagement
  • + Uses one configurable app across studies

What you receive

  • Study completion dashboard
  • Site performance view
  • Weekly status export

Clarrio.ai / Program workspace

Clarrio Platform

Member cohort

Records

4

In review

2

Window

12 mo

Illustrative member cohort
RecordCompleteReview context
94%Sleep context
87%New lab result
91%Training change
82%Check-in due
M-104 · longitudinal recordJan—Dec
M-104: dated observations retain their source context. Completeness varies by source.

Illustrative · synthetic data

Scenarios

How it plays out, step by step

Illustrative scenarios built from typical program workflows. They are not client case studies.

Illustrative scenario 1

Rescuing ePRO compliance mid-study

Diary completion falls at several sites in month four of a study.

  1. 1

    Detect

    Completion drops below the protocol threshold at three sites.

  2. 2

    Diagnose

    Burden questions and timing show evening entries are missed.

  3. 3

    Adjust

    Reminder timing changed within the protocol.

  4. 4

    Follow up

    Coordinators contact participants on the list.

  5. 5

    Track

    Completion compared week by week afterwards.

Outputs: Site completion trend · Participant contact list · Change log

Illustrative scenario 2

A decentralized arm alongside site visits

A sponsor wants a remote arm to widen access without losing data quality.

  1. 1

    Configure

    One app profile for both arms.

  2. 2

    Enroll

    Remote consent and onboarding.

  3. 3

    Collect

    PROs and device data on the same schedule.

  4. 4

    Compare

    Completeness by arm and region.

  5. 5

    Deliver

    One harmonized dataset for both arms.

Outputs: Arm comparison view · Harmonized dataset · Data dictionary

Illustrative scenario 3

Faster database lock

The data team wants fewer late queries at the end of a study.

  1. 1

    Standardize

    Observations coded at ingestion.

  2. 2

    Monitor

    Missingness visible throughout the study.

  3. 3

    Resolve

    Queries raised while participants are still active.

  4. 4

    Document

    Variables described as data arrives.

  5. 5

    Export

    Analysis-ready files at lock.

Outputs: Missingness report · Documented export · Query log

Benefits in practice

Benefits and evidence needs across stakeholder roles

CROs & research teams

Make remote collection operationally accountable across sites

A participant may be enrolled but not connected, connected but not reporting, or reporting outside the intended window. Treating all three situations as one completion measure hides different operational problems. Distributed studies need clear responsibility for connection support, participant contact and data queries, alongside a protocol that defines what should be collected.

  1. 01

    Translate the protocol

    Map each requested observation to a source, collection window and responsible study role.

  2. 02

    Inspect site coverage

    Review available Platform records by participant, site and timepoint; distinguish technical gaps from missed questionnaire windows.

  3. 03

    Resolve and document

    Route issues to the agreed study owner and preserve the context of any correction before producing sponsor-agreed outputs.

For the professional team

Study managers can discuss a specific missing source rather than a generic incomplete record. Data managers can reconcile dates and definitions before analysis. Site teams need a manageable contact process that fits the protocol, not an additional dashboard with no assigned owner. Integration and export requirements belong in the study scope.

For patients, members and caregivers

Participants benefit from a predictable reporting schedule and a clear contact for technical or study questions. Reduce duplicate questions where possible and review whether device access, language or caregiver support affects participation. Remote collection should supplement the protocol, not silently remove necessary visits.

For payers and program funders

When study outputs will later support HEOR or payer appraisal, preserve the link from collection methods to the evidence question. Transparent follow-up and source quality help reviewers understand the dataset, but improved operational completion does not prove that a study conclusion is unbiased.

Illustrative review brief
Collection plan
Source and expected window for each protocol observation
Issue review
Missing source, affected window and responsible study role
Sponsor handoff
Defined variables with reconciliation notes and known limitations

Workflow illustration · not a customer result or live record

What to evaluate before making a claim

Separate enrollment, connection availability, valid observations and scheduled report completion. Compare sites only with denominators and follow-up windows that make the comparison meaningful. Document reasons for gaps where available rather than imputing normal values.

Explore evidence and evaluation

Payers & health economics

Distinguish richer patient context from evidence of value

Claims and encounter datasets can describe recorded utilization without fully capturing function, experience or the practical burden of a program. Patient reports add a different perspective, but they can be incomplete or drawn from a population unlike the members covered by a payer. The task is to establish whether those observations are suitable for a specific appraisal question, not to turn engagement into a savings claim.

  1. 01

    Define the appraisal question

    Specify the relevant covered population, decision, comparator where needed and evaluation horizon.

  2. 02

    Assess data suitability

    Review provenance, participation, measurement windows and missingness before examining results.

  3. 03

    Build the evidence account

    Combine appropriately governed patient experience with relevant clinical or utilization evidence; document assumptions and limits for expert appraisal.

For the professional team

HEOR and population-health teams can examine how reported experience varies across the observation period and which groups are represented. A useful output explains the denominator behind a measure and the observations excluded from analysis. Governance must also define the permitted purpose of any linkage to payer-held data.

For patients, members and caregivers

The member perspective should remain visible in a program evaluation: burden, everyday function, access and what participants consider meaningful. Reporting should not become an unexplained condition of receiving services. Explain the collection purpose and permitted uses in a way members can understand.

For payers and program funders

Decision support means an inspectable evidence package, not an automatic reimbursement verdict. Include the target population, relevant baseline differences, data sources, follow-up and limitations. Cost and utilization conclusions need appropriate data and analysis; neither can be inferred from app activity or observation coverage.

Illustrative review brief
Decision context
Population, appraisal question and evaluation horizon
Suitability account
Provenance, completeness, accuracy and relevance
Interpretation boundary
What the analysis can support and what remains uncertain

Workflow illustration · not a customer result or live record

What to evaluate before making a claim

Separate program participation, patient-reported experience, clinical outcomes and economic endpoints. Define each before collection, use an appropriate comparison where the question requires one and examine whether findings transfer to the covered population.

Explore evidence and evaluation

Patients, members & caregivers

Give the person contributing data a meaningful place in the workflow

A person can complete many questions without understanding why they are being asked or who will read the answers. Device observations may look precise while missing personal context. A useful longitudinal journey starts with the person's priorities and makes the reporting purpose, burden and review arrangements understandable.

  1. 01

    Explain the purpose

    Agree what the care or research program needs to learn and what participation involves.

  2. 02

    Capture lived experience

    Use appropriate reports alongside available observations; distinguish the patient's own answers from caregiver observations.

  3. 03

    Bring context to review

    Discuss a dated interval with the responsible professional, including what is missing and what matters to the person.

For the professional team

Teams gain context for a more specific conversation, but should not assume that a missed report means a person disengaged. Accessibility, fatigue, language and connectivity may affect reporting. Define support and review arrangements before introducing new questions.

For patients, members and caregivers

Patients and members can keep a dated account of experiences they might otherwise forget. Caregivers can contribute observations when appropriately scoped, without replacing the person's own perspective. Personal patterns invite discussion; they are not instructions or proof that a particular routine produced an outcome.

For payers and program funders

A program's apparent reach can hide who could not participate. Payers and commissioners should examine access, reporting burden and representativeness alongside outcome evidence. Patient experience is an important perspective in appraisal, not a shortcut to an economic conclusion.

Illustrative review brief
Personal context
The person's own priorities and dated reports
Reporting perspective
Patient answer or appropriately identified caregiver observation
Review arrangement
Who reviews reports, when and through which contact pathway

Workflow illustration · not a customer result or live record

What to evaluate before making a claim

Ask whether reporting is understandable, manageable and meaningful. Examine completion alongside accessibility and support needs. A high completion rate alone does not show that people feel heard or that a program has improved their health.

Explore evidence and evaluation

What you receive

Data outputs for cros teams

Study teams

Continuous between-visit data

Sponsors

Richer evidence

Patients

Fewer site trips

The Pharma & biotech solution

Investigate disease trajectories, treatment exposure and patient experiences in real-world settings. Clarrio.ai aligns clinical, treatment and behavioral observations to support defined research questions.

See the full solution

Is this your team? Talk to us about your program.

Book a call

Other customers

Request a demo

Explore disease, treatment and behavior together

Explore how clinical, treatment and behavioral information align around your program and the research or review questions your team needs to answer.

Book a demo

Opens the Calendly booking page in a new tab.

Prefer to write first? Send an inquiry and the team will reply.