Hybrid AI in pharma: what goes private, what goes managed
A task-by-task guide to routing trial, safety, compound and literature work between private models in your cloud and managed models such as Claude or GPT.
Read articleHybrid AI for Pharma and Life Sciences
Hybrid AI that routes every request. Private models in your own cloud for trial, safety and compound data. Leading managed models like Claude or GPT for published literature and public guidance. Answers that reason like your scientists and regulatory writers, at a cost you can forecast.
Built for
Pharma AI rarely fails for lack of good models. Control breaks down for five reasons, and most pharma, biotech and research organisations recognise at least one of them.
Reason 1Shadow AI
Compound structures, trial results and draft submissions get pasted into public chatbots because the approved tool is too weak or too slow.
The cost: An IP and data-protection risk you can’t see or audit.
Reason 2Stalled Pilots
Legal, QA and data-protection reviews won’t approve sending trial data or unpublished research to an outside AI vendor, so AI stays on public literature.
The cost: You pay for AI that never touches the work that matters.
Reason 3Generic Output
General-purpose models ignore your SOPs, templates and prior dossiers, so scientists and writers rewrite what comes back.
The cost: The time AI was meant to save disappears in the rewrite.
Reason 4Runaway Cost
Safety cases, documents and literature feeds grow with every study and product. Per-token pricing turns every case narrative and every screened paper into a line item finance can’t forecast.
The cost: The more work you automate, the less you can afford to.
Reason 5Inspection Scrutiny
QA, auditors and health authority inspectors now ask how AI contributed to a document, which data it saw and who approved it.
The cost: Untraceable AI puts submissions, inspections and timelines at risk.
Axenivo keeps confidential data private, uses Claude or GPT only where it helps, reasons like your scientists, and turns runaway token spend into a cost you can plan.
See how hybrid routing worksCRO or CDMO? The same five problems show up with a twist: every sponsor’s data must stay separate, and sponsors audit how you use AI. See the CRO and CDMO page.
Hybrid AI is the core of Axenivo. Every request passes a policy check before any model sees it. Trial, safety, compound and submission data runs on LLMs on GPUs in your own cloud, with no per-token fees. Work with no confidential data, such as summarising published literature or tracking public guidance, can use Claude or GPT, billed per token for that share only. When in doubt, it stays private.
A RequestFrom a scientist or workflow
Policy CheckConfidential data?
Private Where It MattersLLMs on GPUs in your own cloud
Managed Where It HelpsPer token, public work only
One AnswerLower cost per answer
Trial data, safety cases, compound libraries and unpublished research are handled only by open-source models you control. When in doubt, a request stays private.
Managed models such as Claude, GPT or Grok read published literature, public guidance and competitor news without ever seeing your data. You pay per token only for this share of the work.
Routine work such as case intake and document checks is handled by small, fast models. Large models are reserved for complex drafting and analysis.
| Task | Route | What the model sees |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical study reports and trial summaries | Private AI | Patient-level trial data, listings and investigator notes |
| Safety case intake and narratives | Private AI | Adverse event reports, patient details and medical history |
| Regulatory submission drafting | Private AI | Unpublished results, your prior dossiers and agency correspondence |
| Compound and assay data analysis | Private AI | Structures, assay results and your structure-activity data |
| Lab notebook structuring | Private AI | Experimental records, methods and raw observations |
| Patent and freedom-to-operate scans | Private AI | Your invention disclosures, compared with public patents inside your cloud |
| Published literature summaries | Managed AI | Journal articles, preprints and public trial registries |
| Public guidance tracking | Managed AI | Public texts from ICH, EMA, FDA and other health authorities |
| Competitive landscape tracking | Managed AI | Public pipelines, press releases and conference abstracts, never your plans |
See how Axenivo answers: a scientist asks, and every answer separates observation from interpretation, states its confidence, cites your own SOP and shows which side of the hybrid route handled it.
Spontaneous adverse event report from your safety inbox
Private AIConfidential data: stays in your cloud
| Field | Reported |
|---|---|
| Suspect drug | AXV-201, 20 mg |
| Event | Liver enzymes raised |
| Onset | Day 34 of treatment |
| Outcome | Recovering after stop |
Process this case against our case-processing SOP.
Topline efficacy tables from a Phase 2 study
Private AIConfidential data: stays in your cloud
| Arm | n | Responders |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 62 | 21% |
| 10 mg | 60 | 38% |
| 20 mg | 61 | 46% |
| Source | Table 14.2.1 | Topline |
Draft the efficacy results section in our CSR template.
Question from a health authority on a pending application
Private AIConfidential data: stays in your cloud
Draft a response using our prior answers and stability data.
Assay results for a lead series from your screening database
Private AIConfidential data: stays in your cloud
| Compound | IC50 | Solubility |
|---|---|---|
| AX-17-04 | 42 nM | Low |
| AX-17-11 | 18 nM | Low |
| AX-17-15 | 25 nM | Good |
| AX-17-22 | 310 nM | Good |
Which compounds should we take forward, and why?
Invention disclosure checked against published patents
Private AIConfidential data: stays in your cloud
Check our disclosure against published patents in this class.
New papers and a draft public guideline on your target
Managed AIPublic sources only: managed model allowed
Summarise what’s new and what it means for our programme.
Illustrative examples with synthetic data. These are not real patients, compounds, studies or model output; they show the format of Axenivo’s answers. Document names and sections are examples of your own SOPs.
General-purpose assistants give every company the same answers. As more research and regulatory work passes through AI, the know-how that sets your organisation apart becomes available to anyone with a subscription.
| Aspect | Generic AI | Axenivo |
|---|---|---|
| Learns from | Public data, the same for every customer | Your SOPs, assay data, study reports and prior dossiers |
| Reasons like | The vendor’s house style | Your scientists, safety physicians and regulatory writers |
| Judged by | The vendor’s benchmarks | Your experts, on real cases and documents |
| Improves | When the vendor updates everyone | Every time your experts review a draft |
| Uses | One vendor’s model for everything | Private models for confidential data, managed models where they help |
| Runs on | The vendor’s servers | Your own cloud account |
Your Competitor Can License the Same Model Tomorrow. They Can’t License Your Compounds, Your Data or Your Scientists’ Judgement.
Your science, your AI.
Its knowledge, reasoning and quality standard come from your experts. Nothing you build trains anyone else’s model.
Confidential by design.
Every model that sees trial, safety or compound data runs in your cloud account. We operate the platform without any access to your data.
Ready for QA and inspection.
Experts rate answers on real cases, every answer cites its source, and every change is versioned and tested. A change goes live only when it meets your standard.
The strongest model for each task.
Private models for confidential data, Claude or GPT for published literature. Agentic RAG pulls in the exact SOP or prior dossier. New models are adopted only after testing on your cases.
Costs less as volumes grow.
Small models first, capacity that follows working hours and batch runs, and no per-token fees on confidential work. Managed AI is paid for only where it earns its place.
A complete hybrid AI stack, operated for you. Each capability runs where it belongs: private for confidential data, managed where public sources help.
Several large models on call, each chosen per task, so no single model or vendor limits your work.
Private + ManagedFast, efficient SLMs handle routine work first, such as case intake and document checks, keeping each answer quick and low-cost.
PrivateModels tuned on your templates, SOPs and approved documents, so drafts read like your team wrote them.
PrivateSupervised agents gather source tables, prior dossiers and SOPs into one working draft, with an expert approving each outcome.
Private + ManagedAnalysis over your own assay, stability and study data surfaces trends and outliers, next to the tools your scientists already use.
PrivatePublished papers, trial registries and public guidance from ICH, EMA and FDA, read from public sources and kept current.
ManagedEvery answer cites its source to the SOP, table or paper, with observation kept separate from interpretation.
Private + ManagedStudy reports, batch records, lab notebooks, scanned case forms and patents read accurately, with low-quality pages flagged for review.
PrivateEvidence for computerised system validation: versioned configurations, test records and change history, written to your QA standard.
PrivateGovernance built in from day one, the way regulated GxP work already runs.
PrivatePrivate runs in your cloudManaged public sources onlyPrivate + Managed routed per request
Every AI workload has a break-even point. Below it, paying per token is cheaper; above it, owned capacity wins. Pharma work scales with every study, safety case and literature feed, so much of it crosses that line early. Axenivo puts each workload on the right side of the line, and moves it when it crosses.
Illustrative. Monthly cost (vertical) against monthly usage (horizontal); dots mark each break-even point.
At very low volumes, pay-per-use can be cheaper. Our break-even calculator shows where your organisation sits. Cost is one reason for hybrid AI, not the only one: trade secrets and patient confidentiality often justify private AI before the numbers do.
Building hybrid AI for R&D and regulatory work yourself means hiring a team, building a platform and passing IT, QA and data-protection reviews before a single scientist benefits. With Axenivo, you skip straight to the part that matters: your scientists using it.
Your private environment is running in hours, while a build-it-yourself project typically spends its first months on hiring and infrastructure. A supervised pilot with your experts follows within weeks.
No AI engineers, MLOps specialists or GPU experts to recruit in one of the tightest talent markets. Your IT team stays focused on the systems it already runs.
Upgrades, monitoring, scaling, security patches and model releases are handled around the clock. No infrastructure for your team to babysit.
Illustrative comparison of typical phases. Your timeline depends on scope and your own review processes.
XePlatform is our production AI operations platform, already running private and managed AI side by side inside customers’ own cloud accounts. Underneath is platform engineering on Kubernetes: a wide ecosystem of interconnected open-source tools for model serving, scaling, observability and security, integrated, tested and operated as one platform. Axenivo is the pharma and life sciences product built on it, so the engineering underneath is proven before your first pilot begins.
Most teams start with one of these workflows. Every answer shows where it came from and which route handled it.
Adverse event reports coded, checked and summarised against your case-processing SOP, so safety scientists start from a complete draft.
CTD sections and agency responses drafted from your source data and prior dossiers, ready for the regulatory writer to verify.
New published evidence compared with your protocols, so study teams see what affects their design before it becomes a question.
Free-text experimental records turned into structured, searchable entries, linked to methods, materials and results.
Axenivo supports scientific, safety and regulatory work. It does not make decisions: a qualified expert reviews every output, and nothing is submitted or reported automatically.
Explore workflows, example outputs and team scenariosYour teams work with Axenivo inside your own cloud account. We run the platform from outside, with no access to what is inside.
Trial, safety and compound data: never, including prompts, outputs, documents and logs. Operational health metrics: only these, which you can inspect or switch off. Managed AI: only the public sources and public-only tasks you route to it, under a monthly cap you set. See the full data-flow breakdown.
Start with one workflow, often one safety or writing team. Your QA, IT and data-protection teams review in parallel, with documentation we supply.
Axenivo is installed in your cloud account or data centre, in the region you choose, in Europe or North America.
SOPs, templates, prior dossiers and reference documents are indexed, each source traceable. You choose which tasks may use managed AI.
Scientists and writers use Axenivo on real cases and documents, in parallel with today’s process, and rate every answer.
The configuration your experts and QA approved goes live. Rolling back takes one step.
Pharma and biotech companies rightly ask for proof. Here is what you can inspect before you decide, and what your pilot hands you at the end.
No per-token fees for confidential work, however many cases and documents you process. Estimate your break-even point with our calculator.
Before the pilot starts, we record how your team works today. Then we measure the difference.
About hybrid, private and managed AI for pharma and life sciences.
Hybrid AI uses different models for different tasks. In Axenivo, anything involving trial data, safety cases, compound data or unpublished research stays on private, open-source models in your own cloud, with small models answering first and larger models when needed. Tasks with no confidential data, such as summarising published literature or tracking public guidance, can use managed models such as Claude, GPT or Grok.
Private-only means your scientists miss out on the most capable models for public literature. Managed-only sends confidential data to a vendor and bills every case and document by the token. Hybrid gives each task the right model: confidentiality where it matters, frontier capability where it helps, and the lower cost for each workload.
No. Every request passes a policy check before any model sees it. Anything involving trial, patient, safety, compound or submission data, or where the check is unsure, stays private. You decide which task types may use managed AI at all, and you can switch it off entirely.
No. Axenivo works on top of the systems you already run. Your safety database, LIMS, electronic lab notebook and document management system stay the systems of record; Axenivo helps your teams read, summarise and draft, grounded in your own SOPs.
No. Axenivo is decision support with human oversight. A qualified expert reviews every output and makes the decision, and nothing is submitted to a health authority or reported automatically. Your organisation defines the intended use of each workflow.
In Axenivo, private AI is the part that handles confidential data. The models run inside your own cloud account or data centre, under your control, instead of on a vendor’s servers. Axenivo delivers it as an operated platform, so companies get the benefits without building an AI team.
Running AI on confidential data is far more than provisioning a server with a GPU. It needs infrastructure provisioning as code, model serving, retrieval over your own SOPs, staging environments, release engineering with evaluation gates and rollback, observability, autoscaling, backup and security policy, all kept running every day. Axenivo delivers that complete stack, built on XePlatform, inside your own cloud account and operated for you, so a supervised pilot can start within weeks without new hires.
Axenivo is designed to support GDPR, HIPAA and EU AI Act obligations, as well as GxP expectations such as EU GMP Annex 11 and FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Confidential data is processed only inside your own account, every request and approval is logged, and we provide documentation for your impact assessments, supplier qualification and computerised system validation. Compliance itself depends on how your organisation uses the platform.
Open-source general and domain models run inside your account for all confidential work, alongside your own scientific models. New models are adopted only after they pass evaluation on your own cases. Managed models such as Claude, GPT or Grok are used only for tasks with no confidential data.
Yes. Axenivo runs on the major public clouds in the region you choose, in Europe or North America, or in your private cloud or data centre, built on open standards so you can move without rebuilding.
A fixed platform subscription plus your own cloud costs, with no per-token fees for confidential work. Managed AI is billed per token only for the tasks you route to it, under a monthly cap. Small models first, capacity that follows your working hours and batch runs, and shared hardware keep the cost of each answer low, which matters when case and document volumes grow with every study.
The environment is set up in hours and your SOPs loaded within days. A supervised pilot with your experts typically runs about four weeks, while your QA, IT and data-protection teams complete their review in parallel.
A task-by-task guide to routing trial, safety, compound and literature work between private models in your cloud and managed models such as Claude or GPT.
Read articleSafety case volumes grow with every product on the market. Here is where the break-even point sits, and why owned capacity wins.
Read articleIf every company uses the same assistant, the SOPs and judgement that set a strong R&D organisation apart start to disappear.
Read articleExplore a supervised pilot using your own documents, infrastructure and evaluation criteria. Tell us the workflow that costs your experts the most time.