For translational scientists and programme leaders
Bring clarity to cardio-renal research.
Corelia Intelligence turns your framed research question into a reviewer-approved decision dossier — contradictions, uncertainties and sources side by side, every claim linked to a real publication.
Who approves? Scientific sign-off stays with your named reviewer. Corelia Intelligence provides the workflow, the evidence table and the audit trail — not the approval.
Guided evaluation: one real research question, one reviewed dossier — request it through the trial form.
Corelia Intelligence is the research workspace from Corelia Bio.
From hundreds of studies to one clear, reviewed answer
What Corelia Intelligence does
A hard research question in.
One clear, reviewed answer out.
One clear answer
Checked, sourced, and signed off by a scientist
No jargon walls, no raw PDFs — just the evidence that matters for your decision,
made readable and trustworthy.
The cardio-renal axis
Two organs, one conversation
Cardio-renal science is a single connected story. Corelia Intelligence is built around that connection — the evidence, the uncertainty and the decision, read as one.
The heart drives
Cardiac output, pressure and congestion set the conditions the kidney must work under.
The axis connects
One feedback loop ties haemodynamics, fibrosis and inflammation across both organs — and most decisions hinge on it.
The kidney answers
Filtration, perfusion and compensatory responses feed straight back into the heart's trajectory.
How it works
From question to dossier
The workspace follows one workflow — three stages that map directly to what the product does today.
01Frame the question
Structured intake captures the decision, its owner, the endpoints of interest and the evidence cut-off, so every dossier starts with a fixed scope.
02Examine the evidence
Source documents become structured evidence records, each tied to an accessible passage and to the uncertainties the source itself reports.
03Review the dossier
Observations, interpretations and proposals are kept visibly apart, checked against their citations by a named reviewer, and only approved versions can be exported.
Product tour
Example dossier
A walk through the product with a public, non-confidential sample — no customer data.
Demo dossier
Read-only · public sample dataWhat a Corelia Intelligence dossier looks like once a question has been processed.
Worked example — every source below is a real publication, verified against PubMed with a live PMID link. Effects are reported exactly at the level stated in the public record, including the cross-context difference.
Sample — SGLT2 inhibition in cardiorenal injury
preclinicalDoes SGLT2 inhibition deliver cardio-renal protection — reduced interstitial fibrosis in tissue models and improved kidney and cardiac outcomes in humans — compared with standard of care?
Evidence records
- S1DAPA-CKD — dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney diseaseEndpoint: Composite kidney outcome (≥50% eGFR decline, ESKD, renal or cardiovascular death)Effect: Slower progression vs placeboUncertainty: HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.51–0.72)
- S2Empagliflozin attenuates renal interstitial fibrosis in diabetic kidney disease (mouse model)Endpoint: Renal interstitial fibrosis; lymphatic endothelial-to-mesenchymal transitionEffect: Fibrosis attenuated; lymphangiogenesis and EndMT reduced (VEGF-C/VEGFR3 pathway)Uncertainty: Qualitative, as reported in the public abstract
- S3SGLT2 inhibition does not improve active lupus nephritis in MRLlpr/lpr miceEndpoint: Active nephritis outcomes in an inflammatory lupus modelEffect: No improvement in this disease contextUncertainty: Context difference — negative in an inflammatory model, not a direct contradiction of the diabetic-model finding
- S4DAPA-HF — dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fractionEndpoint: Worsening heart failure or cardiovascular deathEffect: Fewer events vs placeboUncertainty: HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.65–0.85)
- S5EMPA-REG OUTCOME — empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetesEndpoint: 3-point MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke)Effect: Lower MACE risk vs placeboUncertainty: HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–0.99)
Assessment claims
- Executive assessmentObservationHuman outcome trials show fewer kidney and cardiac events (S1, S4, S5); a mouse model of diabetic kidney disease shows attenuated interstitial fibrosis (S2). These are two evidence layers — human clinical outcomes and preclinical tissue findings — and the human trials measure outcomes, not fibrosis directly.
- ContradictionsInterpretationIn an active lupus nephritis mouse model, SGLT2 inhibition showed no improvement (S3). This is a cross-context difference — a different disease model — not a direct contradiction of the diabetic-model fibrosis finding (S2). What it does rule out is a generalised anti-fibrotic mechanism claim that ignores disease context.
- Translational gapsProposalNo human interstitial-tissue study of the anti-fibrotic endpoint was identified (documented search scope: PubMed, human tissue, SGLT2 inhibitor + fibrosis endpoints, up to the evidence cut-off) — a documented absence of human-tissue evidence, not evidence of absence. For this programme, the proposed gate before any preclinical scale-up decision is human-tissue validation of the anti-fibrotic endpoint (S2, S3): the anti-fibrotic signal so far rests on a diabetic mouse model and human trials that measure clinical outcomes, not fibrosis. This is a gate for this programme, not a universal requirement.
The actual exported deliverable — 9-section dossier, version 3, reviewer-approved
The same sample dossier, browsable live in the workspace — every reference is a real publication linked to PubMed.
Pricing
Subscription plans for research teams using Corelia Intelligence.
Researcher
1 seat, 2 concurrent projects, up to 30 documents processed per month
- 1 seat — individual research workspace
- Full core dossier workflow (intake → review → export) — the same workflow the team plans use
- Up to 30 documents processed / month
- 2 concurrent projects
- Unlimited dossier exports (PDF + markdown)
Team
Recommended4 seats, 3 concurrent projects, up to 100 documents processed per month
- 4 seats in one shared workspace — one evidence base, shared reviews and audit trail
- Core dossier workflow (intake → review → export) across the whole team
- Up to 100 documents processed / month — over 3× a single Researcher
- 3 concurrent projects
- Unlimited dossier exports (PDF + markdown)
Programme
10 seats, 10 concurrent projects, up to 400 documents processed per month
- 10 seats in one shared workspace — a whole programme team on one evidence base, one review process and one audit trail
- 10 concurrent projects — run an entire portfolio, not one question at a time
- Up to 400 documents processed / month — exactly 4× Team's 100, sized for multi-programme throughput
- Multiple named reviewers — assign different reviewers per project and review in parallel
- Cross-programme reporting — project activity and stage-timing dashboards across all projects
- Full integrations suite — Jira, Notion, BigQuery and Search Console connected per user
- Unlimited dossier exports (PDF + markdown) for every approved version
Enterprise
Broader deployment, administration, integrations and contractual requirements
- Broader deployment across teams
- Administration controls
- Integrations
- Custom processing allowances and project limits
- Contractual requirements
Why Team rather than four Researcher seats?
At 4 × €119 = €476 versus Team's €479, the maths looks equal — until you notice what four Researcher seats actually buy: four isolated workspaces, four separate evidence bases, no shared review and no common audit trail. Team is one shared evidence base: reviews and corrections visible to everyone, a named reviewer attached per project, one audit trail. The aggregate document allowance is deliberately lower than four isolated seats, because a shared review process does not re-process the same documents four times — the upgrade buys shared review and collaboration, not volume.
Every plan includes the version-locked review workflow, audit trail and unlimited exports of approved dossiers. Scientific review is performed by your own named reviewer — Corelia provides the workflow and the audit trail, not the scientific sign-off. The processing allowance counts documents processed per month; unused capacity does not roll over. Evaluation trials are granted on request.