Skip to main content
All Posts By

Andy

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/

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.