CF Venture Opportunity Atlas

Methods

Every major number has a source and a date.

This page is the appendix. It does not change the ranking. It is here so a reader can see what was counted, what was filtered, and what public data cannot support.

Not medical advice, not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, and not a claim that any opportunity should be funded.

Sources

  • CFF Patient Registry 2024 Annual Data Report. Public PDF; no patient-level API. US accredited care-center participants who consented.
  • ClinicalTrials.gov interventional search for cystic fibrosis. Retrieved Sep 9, 2026. No API key. Sponsors report their own studies.
  • CFF Drug Development Pipeline webpage, curated snapshot. There is no pipeline API.

What gets onto the map

Keyword rules suggest a label for every trial. The competitive map and the “white space” part of the score use only rows marked reviewed, cystic fibrosis, and map-eligible. The NCFB title/summary rule is a first filter, not a diagnosis. NCT01851694 (a real CF diabetes study) was overridden to CF and is not a product on the map.

How the 0–100 score is made

Each leftover problem gets six 1–5 scores: patient need, treatment gap, competitive white space, tractability, economic relevance, and why now. Default mix: 25%, 20%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 10%. Those are averaged with the weights, then multiplied by 20 so the index runs from 20 to 100. Evidence is a separate High / Moderate / Low label. Trial counts may inform white space after review; they do not set need, tractability, or why-now. Economic relevance is not a market-size overlay on 33,989 people.

Theses

Seven challenge memos inherit the parent leftover’s score. Each one has a bear case, counterarguments, remaining checks, and kill criteria. Eligible-but-not-prescribed (N2) and aging with CF (N7) stay scored and are not treated as default new companies.

What this data cannot do

  • Registry figures are US care-center consenters, not a global patient file.
  • Complication percentages generally exclude lung-transplant recipients, which is why 19.2% is not 19.2% of 33,989.
  • ClinicalTrials.gov misses most work that has not reached people, and condition tags are noisy.
  • CFF pipeline listings include discontinued programs; review takes those off the map.
  • The opportunity index is exploratory. It is not a valuation or a securities recommendation.