Questions teams ask before they start.

Axiome starts where your pipeline stops. It does not replace your data platform, your analysis environment or the tools your bioinformaticians run, and nothing gets migrated. It holds the layer they all drop: what your team concluded from the results, and why.

You keep them. They give you the figure and the statistic, and both are useful. What they do not hold is the conclusion you drew and the reasoning that makes it defensible, which today lives in a slide, an email thread or someone's memory. Axiome keeps that part attached to the data it came from.

Different layer. Bioinformatics produces the result; Axiome holds what your team decides the result means. It tends to make that spend more durable, because the reasoning built on top of it stops disappearing when the study closes.

The first version, yes. A workspace with versioned charts is a few months of work for a capable team. The slower part is everything after it: provenance that holds up under review, keeping what you ruled out, access controlled per project across institutions, and maintaining all of it while the science is the actual job. That is usually the part that ends up owned by one person, until they move on.

Most often the scientist who frames the question, alongside the clinician who brings the cohort and the bioinformatician who runs the analysis. Reviewers and stakeholders come in to read and sign rather than to work.

Axiome does not run your analysis and does not do your statistics. Your bioinformaticians keep their pipelines, your biostatistician keeps the validation, and neither hands anything over. What changes is that the reasoning behind the choices they make is recorded as they work, with their name on it, so it stays attributable and legible instead of ending inside a deliverable.

For the work Axiome covers, screening a table, comparing groups, running the standard tests and recording what you concluded, your scientists and clinicians can work directly. The analysis upstream stays with whoever does it today.

There is no write-up step. The reasoning is captured while you work: the threshold you set, the path you dropped, the call you made on an outlier. Those decisions happen today and then evaporate. You are not documenting more, you are losing less.

CSV, TSV and XLSX exports from your existing pipeline: RNA-Seq, single-cell, flow cytometry and CyTOF, clinical and longitudinal tables. Several assays on the same patients across timepoints stay together as one subject rather than four separate tables.

Nothing is overwritten. The new data creates a new version linked to the one before it, so the cohort you defined, the thresholds you set and the reasoning attached to them are all still there and still readable. You can see what changed, and what the earlier conclusion was based on, without reconstructing it.

Across different diseases and different questions, less than people hope, and we would rather say so. Within one programme over time, quite a lot: the same cohort definitions, the same criteria, the same calls revisited as the study matures. That is where this earns its place.

Disagreement on the same data is normal and Axiome does not try to settle it. Both readings can be recorded, each with its evidence and the criteria behind it, so the discussion is about the reasoning rather than about which version of the file someone opened.

They are invited into the work rather than sent a file. They see the finding, the evidence it rests on and its version history, without your working files or your internal discussion. Whatever leaves, a chart, a figure, an export, carries where it came from.

The work stays answerable. The cohort definitions, the thresholds and the reasons behind them belong to the study rather than to the person who happened to run it, so the next question is a lookup instead of a reconstruction.