Product overview
How OpenSite works
OpenSite turns ClinicalTrials.gov’s registry data into plain-English, evidence-cited answers about competing trials, site experience, and investigator track record — so clinical operations teams can make site-selection and recruitment-risk calls without waiting days for a manual feasibility pull.
- Data source
- ClinicalTrials.gov registry data, read-only
- Data freshness
- Always current — every question checks the live registry again
- Built for
- Sponsors, CROs, site networks
How it works
Ask in plain English
Type a question about sites, principal investigators, competing trials, recruitment, or milestones — no SQL, no schema to learn.
OpenSite queries live registry data
It identifies the right tables and fields, checks the real stored values for phase and status before filtering, and runs a fresh, read-only query — every time, even on a follow-up.
You get a grounded answer
One direct sentence with the finding, a couple of decision-relevant caveats, and follow-up questions worth asking next — never an invented NCT ID, sponsor, or statistic.
Every claim ships with its evidence
A supporting-evidence table of the actual matching trials appears first, then collapses as the answer streams in — reopen it anytime, or download the full result set as a CSV.
Key features
Natural-language querying
Ask about sites, PIs, competing trials, or milestones the way you'd ask a colleague — OpenSite handles the registry query underneath.
Traceable evidence
Every answer is paired with the underlying rows, so a number is always a click away from the record it came from.
Live data on every turn
Follow-ups re-query current registry data rather than trusting the last answer — the registry moves, so the numbers keep up.
Table-first, exportable results
See the matching trials before the narrative, then export result sets larger than the on-screen preview to CSV.
PI & KOL identification
Surfaces which principal investigators — key opinion leaders — have run or recruited the most for a given indication.
Deliberately cautious language
Won't call a site or PI “best” without a defined metric, and flags when direct site or sponsor validation is still required.
Use cases by role
Size up the competition for patients before committing a lean team and a limited budget to a protocol, and watch for shifts in who else is chasing the same population.
Shortlist sites and investigators with real registered experience in an indication — and back the recommendation with evidence a sponsor can trust — before a single feasibility call is made.
Get a cited, defensible answer to a recruitment or investigator question in the time it takes to ask it — with a paper trail the board and investors can trust.
Every answer is grounded in that question’s live results. Conversation history carries intent, not data — so the numbers you see are never older than the question you just asked.