Skip to main content
All Posts By

Andy

AI as a First-Pass Analyst: What It Can (and Can’t) Do for Your Pitch Deck

By News

By Kelly Murphy, BHI Life Sciences Business Strategist and Program Manager

At BioHealth Innovation, we have worked with hundreds of early-stage biohealth founders preparing for investor meetings, and increasingly, we are seeing AI tools enter the preparation process. When used well, AI can function like a “first-pass analyst” to quickly stress-test your narrative, identify gaps, and to help translate complex science into investor-friendly language. But while AI can accelerate early feedback cycles, it is not a substitute for deep domain expertise, investor insight, or strategic judgement that can be provided by experienced entrepreneurs and analysts. Knowing where it adds value and where it falls short is what separates founders who use it effectively from those who are lulled into a false sense of readiness.

What AI Can Do Well

AI excels at structure, clarity, and pattern recognition. For early-stage companies, this can be a major advantage.

First, AI can help ensure your pitch deck tells a coherent story. Many technical founders struggle to translate highly specialized science into a compelling narrative for an investor audience. AI can quickly flag when your problem statement is unclear, your value proposition is buried, or your slides don’t logically flow from unmet need to solution to market opportunity.

Second, AI is effective at benchmarking against common expectations and best practices. While it doesn’t “know” your company, it has been trained on patterns of successful communication. It can suggest whether you’re missing standard components that investors expect to see.

Third, AI can improve readability and tone. It can simplify jargon-heavy language, tighten messaging, and help tailor your pitch for different audiences (e.g., scientific vs. financial stakeholders). For teams preparing multiple versions of a deck with several authors, this can also significantly reduce iteration time and maintain consistency of tone.

Finally, AI can serve as a rapid feedback loop. Founders can get immediate reactions and refine their materials in real time, making subsequent expert feedback more focused and productive.

Where AI Falls Short

Despite these strengths, AI has meaningful limitations, especially in a field as nuanced as biohealth.

Most importantly, AI lacks true domain judgment and cannot assess the credibility of the claims being made. For example, AI may identify that a “clinical plan” slide is missing, but it cannot validate whether the plan itself is viable. For investors who understand the industry, a well-formatted but strategically flawed slide is worse than nothing at all.

AI also struggles with context. It does not understand your specific market dynamics, competitive positioning, or investor landscape. For example, it may suggest adding more market-sizing details without recognizing that your niche indication requires a more nuanced reimbursement or adoption strategy.

Another limitation is overgeneralization. AI often defaults to broadly applicable best practices that are not always strategically appropriate. In some cases, what makes a company compelling is precisely what deviates from the norm and AI may inadvertently steer founders toward a more generic narrative.

Finally, there is a risk of false confidence. A well-written output can give the impression of rigor, even when underlying assumptions haven’t been critically evaluated. AI also tends to compliment the user and encourage any prompt it is given, even if it is not well thought out. This is particularly dangerous when preparing for sophisticated investors who will probe deeply beyond surface-level messaging. A fun way to test this for yourself is to ask AI its thoughts on the worst business idea you can come up with and see how it responds.

Best Practices for Using AI Effectively: A Recommended Workflow

To get the most value from AI as a first-pass analyst, founders should treat it as a starting point and not as a decision-maker.

Step 1: AI-Assisted Drafting: Use AI early in the process to organize your thinking, pressure-test your story, and identify obvious gaps. Be specific in your prompts, for example, ask it to evaluate your deck from the perspective of a life sciences investor or to critique your value proposition based on clinical and commercial criteria. The more targeted the prompt, the more useful the output.

Step 2: Expert Gap Analysis: Layer in human expertise from advisors, mentors and/or consultants to bring the contextual understanding and strategic insight that AI cannot replicate. The goal is to use AI to elevate the quality of your materials so that expert feedback can focus on higher-value issues. These stakeholders can review positioning and help anticipate the questions investors will ask. A deck that has been reviewed by people who have sat on both sides of the table is stronger. At BHI, our role at this stage is to validate the substance beneath the narrative, not just the presentation.

Step 4: Investor mock session. Before your first real meeting, run a mock with someone who can simulate investor questions by probing your assumptions, challenging your data, and  identifying non-obvious areas of improvement. AI cannot do this, but experienced specialists such as BHI’s entrepreneurs-in-residence and analysts can.

Throughout this process, remain critical of the output. Not all suggestions by AI will be relevant, and some may even dilute your differentiation or flatten nuance on complicated topics. Use AI as a tool to expand your perspective but rely on your team’s judgment to make final decisions.

The Bottom Line

AI is a powerful tool for improving the efficiency and clarity of early-stage pitch development. As a first-pass analyst, it can help founders move faster, communicate more effectively, and prepare more polished materials. But in biohealth, where scientific validity, clinical strategy, and market nuance are paramount, AI is only one piece of the puzzle. The strongest pitch decks we’ve seen at BHI combine innovative technologies with deep scientific expertise and strategic storytelling. AI can help you get there faster but it can’t get you there alone.

Work with BHI on Your Pitch Strategy

BioHealth Innovation supports early-stage biotech and medtech companies through go-to-market strategy, market analysis, and investor readiness. If you’re preparing for a fundraising round and want expert eyes on your pitch, beyond what AI can offer, we’d welcome the conversation.

Contact us at kmurphy@biohealthinnovation.org and jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org

AI in Grant Writing: Where it Helps and Where it Hurts

By EIR Insights, News

By Catherine Leasure, Ph.D., BHI Life Sciences Business Strategist – If you’ve written a grant recently, you’ve probably wondered whether AI could make the process easier. Maybe you’ve already tried it. The honest answer is that AI can help, but how much depends entirely on what you bring to it. When you know what you’re doing, it gets you to a solid draft faster. However, without a strong grasp of the process behind it, it can produce polished-sounding text that misses the mark in ways that aren’t always obvious until a reviewer or experienced grant writer points them out.

Where AI Earns Its Keep

The tasks where AI performs best are the ones that are time-consuming but relatively mechanical. Generating a document outline that accounts for both grant requirements and your specific project content is a good example. What might take an hour of cross-referencing a funding opportunity announcement can be done in minutes with the right prompt. From there, AI can help turn that outline into a working first draft and translate dense technical language into plain descriptions for non-specialist reviewers, which is particularly useful when generating ancillary documents like abstracts or project summaries that need to be accessible to a broad audience.

AI also shines in the later stages of drafting. Grant applications are long documents, and inconsistencies are easy to overlook when you’ve been working on the proposal for weeks or months. Terminology that shifts between sections that were written by different people, early claims that aren’t fully supported later in the document, and overly wordy sentences are all the kinds of issues that AI excels at catching and fixing. It can also serve as a compliance checker, making sure required sections are present and that the structure of your application matches what the solicitation requires.

None of this replaces the thinking that goes into a competitive application. But it does free up time and mental energy for the parts that require it.

Where AI Falls Short

The same confidence that makes AI useful in the drafting process can work against you when the content and strategy require nuance. AI can misrepresent novel technologies, fabricate citations, or produce technically plausible descriptions that are subtly wrong (this is called hallucinating). For early-stage companies with innovative science, this is a real risk. AI can only work with what you give it. If you’re not providing detailed, accurate information about your technology and approach, it will fill in the gaps on its own, and not always correctly. You need someone who actually understands the technology both guiding the prompts and reviewing anything AI generates before it goes into your final draft.

Beyond accuracy, there’s a layer of strategic knowledge that AI doesn’t have access to. It can’t tell you how a program officer has been framing their priorities in recent conversations, what a review panel tends to weigh most heavily, or whether your project is actually a good fit for a particular solicitation before you invest time writing your proposal. That kind of information comes from reaching out to and meeting with program officers before you submit. These conversations can reshape an application in ways that no AI tool can replicate.

Then there’s the writing itself. Even the best prompts can produce text that experienced reviewers recognize immediately: sentence structures like “it’s not X, it’s Y,” excessive adjectives, and the overuse of certain punctuation are all patterns that show up repeatedly in AI-generated text. Beyond the stylistic tells, AI tends toward a kind of confident vagueness that sounds thorough but doesn’t actually say much. In competitive grant programs, that kind of generic writing loses. If AI contributes to any part of your draft, it’s the grant writer’s job to make sure the final product sounds like it was written by a real person. Reviewers who are engaged with your writing are more likely to be engaged with your science.

Finally, using AI to write your grant poses a potential confidentiality risk that often goes overlooked. When you paste proprietary information about your technology into a public AI tool, that content may be used to train the model, and there is no guarantee it will stay private. Details about your innovation could potentially surface in someone else’s results! Treat any public AI tool the way you would any other unsecured channel: don’t put anything in that you wouldn’t be comfortable sharing publicly.

Agency Guidance on AI Use

Some funding agencies have begun addressing AI use in applications directly. NIH, for example, recently issued guidance stating that applications that are substantially developed by AI will not be considered original ideas of the applicant, and that the NIH employs AI detection tools to identify AI-generated content (NOT-OD-25-132). Applications found to be in violation post-award can face serious consequences, including cost disallowance, grant suspension, or termination. The NSF has taken a slightly more lenient approach, requesting that proposers disclose whether AI tools were used when preparing an application. The NIH and the NSF are not alone in scrutinizing AI use, and it is reasonable to expect other agencies to follow suit as AI use becomes more widespread.

The Bottom Line

AI is a useful tool in the grant writing process, but it works best as a starting point, not a final product. The applications that score well aren’t necessarily the ones with the smoothest prose, they’re the ones that demonstrate a clear understanding of the funding landscape, make a compelling scientific case, and show reviewers that the team behind the project knows what they’re doing. That requires expertise that no prompt can substitute for.

Used effectively, AI can get you to a better draft faster. But knowing how to use it thoughtfully, and knowing when not to rely on it, is itself a skill.

Work with Us

At BHI, we work with clients from the earliest stages of identifying the right funding opportunity through grant submission, including helping determine where AI can speed up the process and where it needs to be set aside in favor of human expertise. Our grant writers have supported over 200 applications, helping clients secure $66M in non-dilutive funding. If you’re working on a grant application and want to make sure you’re using every tool available without sacrificing the quality of your submission, we’d love to talk.

Prolight reports positive Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) biomarker results with BRAINBox Solutions, confirming broad assay potential of the Psyros™ POC platform

By News

Prolight Diagnostics, a leader in point-of-care (POC) technology, today announces positive results from a collaboration with BRAINBox Solutions, a leader in multi-modality diagnostic and prognostic tests for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The analytic evaluation shows strong performance across a unique combination of three traumatic brain injury biomarkers, demonstrating the ease with which multiple novel markers can be transferred onto the Psyros unique
single-molecule-counting platform and reinforcing its potential to improve patient care for broad clinical use. 

The findings align with earlier pre‑clinical data demonstrating Psyros’ ability to deliver laboratory‑grade performance, detecting biomarkers at extremely low concentrations within minutes using only a small sample. The study was fully funded by BRAINBox, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.

Building on these results, Prolight and BRAINBox will now advance to the next phase of the BRAINBox‑funded programme, evaluating all three assays using a 260-patient sample bank. The samples are a subset of the more than 2000 available from BRAINBox’s ongoing, HeadSMART II pivotal clinical study of its diagnostic and prognostic test for mild TBI, BRAINBox TBI, to support submission to the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing clearance. The assay format uses Psyros’ multiplex‑enabled, dried‑reagent cartridge, supporting scalable, low‑cost manufacturing – an important advantage in TBI and other conditions requiring high-precision, multi‑analyte testing.

“We are very encouraged by the outcomes of this first assay evaluation with BRAINBox. The data reinforce the versatility of the Psyros platform and its ability to support multiple assay formats. With BRAINBox now fully funding the next 260‑patient assay study, we see strong validation of Psyros’ unique market potential,” said Ulf Bladin, CEO of Prolight Diagnostics. “In parallel, Prolight remains fully focussed on delivering our high-sensitivity troponin test, as we gear up for the clinical performance study.”

”We have been actively seeking a point-of-care platform capable of delivering the ultra-sensitive performance required for our multimodality TBI test suite of products which can support our broad strategy for diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring in all care environments across our patent protected full neurology test pipeline. These early results from this recently established collaboration suggest that the Psyros system meets – and may even exceed – our performance expectations and potentially accelerate the development and commercialization of our tests. The ability to measure multiple TBI biomarkers within minutes at the point-of-care has the potential to meaningfully enhance real-world assessment and clinical decision-making in
brain-injury care. We look forward to progressing to the next phase of our collaboration,” said Donna Edmonds, CEO of BRAINBox.

Prolight continues to attract growing interest from global diagnostics companies, supported by Psyros’ competitive advantages: unprecedented detection limits, whole‑blood capability, rapid turnaround time, multiplex functionality and low-cost manufacturing.

About Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 
TBI is increasingly recognized as a major global health challenge and a rapidly emerging market for diagnostic innovation, particularly for rapid point-of-care (POC) testing. The clinical challenge with TBI is that even mild brain injury can have serious long term clinical consequences, mild TBI diagnostics require high sensitivity to reliably detect injury and safely identify patients who may require further imaging or intervention.

With an estimated 69 million people worldwide experiencing a TBI each year, driven by road traffic accidents, falls, sports injuries, and military trauma, there is growing demand for highly sensitive tests that can deliver rapid results in emergency departments, ambulances, urgent care centers, sports settings, and other frontline care environments, which include a growing number of concussion clinics.

The global TBI diagnostics market is currently valued at approximately USD 3–3.4 billion, with forecasts projecting growth to around USD 6 billion or more by 2032–2033 as awareness, clinical guidelines, and biomarker technologies advance. As awareness has increased, so has the demand for rapid and portable testing solutions, with increasing adoption of blood-based biomarker tests an opportunity is emerging for POC diagnostics to enable faster triage, helping to reduce reliance on costly CT scans.

As healthcare systems seek faster and more cost-effective ways to triage patients with suspected head injury, POC TBI testing represents a significant emerging segment within this multibillion-dollar market, with strong potential for adoption across emergency medicine, sports medicine, military medicine, and pre-hospital care worldwide.

About BRAINBox Solutions
BRAINBox Solutions is developing the first AI‐enabled, multi‐modality approach for the diagnosis and prognosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, commonly referred to as a concussion. The company seeks to establish a clinical best‐practice standard for the diagnosis and prognosis of concussion.

The product incorporates a panel of proprietary, patented blood biomarkers that can be read in a few moments on a point‐of‐care instrument or using standard laboratory systems, as well as neurocognitive testing, to provide a single‐system score that measures the severity of the injury and post-concussive symptoms. BrainBox is currently completing a pivotal clinical study, the HeadSMART II clinical trial, which is evaluating the diagnostic and prognostic potential of BrainBox TBI in more than 2000 patients. The company is led by key physician and scientific thought leaders in the field and an experienced, clinically focused management team. For more information please see: https://brainboxinc.com/

BHI EIR Insights: We’ve Seen Something Like This Before: Agentic AI and the Early Days of Online Research

By EIR Insights, News

This thought-provoking piece in The Wall Street Journal (“Can AI Replace Humans for Market Research?”) by Belle L. (Lin) highlights the use of AI agents for ✅ opinion polling and ✏️ market research. The article made me think of another time when new technology offered the potential to create value through digital transformation in this sector.

At the height of the dot com era, c. 1999, I was asked by Jeremy Brody to co-found one of the first-ever online research firms. The idea that technology makes work “faster, cheaper, AND easier” was appealing, especially coming from consulting early in our careers.

Along with our small, all-star team, stellar board, and a few partners, our leverage for growth was a web-based survey app and an opt-in doctor database. At the time, these assets were disruptive.

Our work helped move research from fax (yes, fax! 📠), mail, and phone to a Web-based digital platform 🤖.

The surveys focused on topics like:

➡️ Unmet medical needs,
➡️ New product features and functionality,
➡️ Evidence generation, and
➡️ Launch strategy.

These topics remain a big portion of the $150 billion insights industry today (for market size, see article link below).

When we built that early dot com research agency, the American Medical Association’s latest data (1997) said only 20% of physicians were using the Internet. By 2000, it nearly doubled to 37%. So we had to help build the market as adoption caught up to the technology’s capabilities.

Adoption of AI is much faster.

Whether in research or other domains, the discussion and the decisions (in my opinion) need to focus on appropriate use cases, governance, and ethical use. What’s your take?

💡 For what specific business need would you use agentic market research?

💡 In what situations would you be reluctant or avoid it?

Thanks to Belle Lin for the excellent article 💯 . Here is the link: https://lnkd.in/eKUNx-W9

Sustaining Leadership Under Pressure with Dr. Sheetal Ajmani of Radiant Living Institute on BioTalk

By BioTalk with Rich Bendis Podcast, News

Dr. Sheetal Ajmani joins BioTalk to discuss a topic rarely addressed in the life sciences startup world. The personal and leadership toll that accompanies building and scaling a company. A physician turned executive coach and founder of Radiant Living Institute, Dr. Ajmani works closely with founders and senior leaders navigating intense professional pressure while trying to maintain clarity in decision making.

In this conversation, she explains how exhaustion and sustained stress can quietly affect leadership judgment during critical moments such as fundraising, board interactions, regulatory setbacks, and periods of rapid growth. The discussion explores the signals that investors and advisors may overlook when a founder is struggling behind the scenes, and how the culture of “pushing through” can begin to create risk not only for individuals but for the companies they lead. Dr. Ajmani also shares practical ways founders can stabilize their leadership presence and maintain momentum while protecting their own well-being.

Listen now on your favorite platform:
Apple: https://apple.co/4swmqJR
Spotify: https://bit.ly/47vWndC
YouTube Podcasts (audio): https://bit.ly/46OmeNO
Amazon Music Podcasts: https://amzn.to/4cwQbFN
iHeartRadio Podcasts: https://ihr.fm/3PqJfAg
TuneIn: https://bit.ly/4lioh2r

Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com).

Dr. Sheetal Ajmani is a physician, keynote speaker, and executive coach who helps leaders and founders reclaim their well-being and lead with authenticity. After nearly two decades in clinical medicine, she founded Radiant Living Institute, where she integrates science, psychology, and the mind-body connection to help individuals make meaningful and sustainable changes in their lives and leadership. Dr. Ajmani is also the host of the Essential Self-Care podcast and co-author of the Amazon bestselling book Doctoring, Better. For more information, visit https://www.radiantlivinginstitute.com/.

 

Search

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

BioHealth Innovation will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.