An academic center, a specialty clinic, a CRO, and a sponsor are each solving a different part of the same recruitment problem — understanding the protocol, organizing eligibility, prioritizing screening, planning enrollment. What follows is how each one tends to use the workspace.
Give investigators and coordinators one shared reading of eligibility across competing Crohn's and UC protocols running in the same center.
Help a clinic that already knows its Crohn's and colitis population decide which patients are worth discussing for an open study, and in what order.
Standardize how study teams structure eligibility across sites and report recruitment progress back to sponsors.
See earlier where endoscopic thresholds and prior-biologic rules narrow the eligible population, and plan recruitment against that reality.
The same three components, described the way each kind of team actually encounters them.
Fig. 1 — Academic IBD centers
A tertiary IBD program runs six to ten interventional studies at once. Two of them want biologic-naive moderate-to-severe Crohn's; three want anti-TNF-experienced UC. Coordinators re-read the same eligibility language for each, and the interpretation drifts between investigators.
Protocol Reading
Every open protocol resolved into the same criteria structure, so CDAI ≥ 220, SES-CD ≥ 6 and Mayo endoscopic subscore ≥ 2 read identically across studies once an investigator has accepted the model.
TrialFit
A candidate profile is scored against all open IBD protocols at once, and the workspace shows which study the patient fits best rather than which study was checked first.
Recruitment Analytics
Screening effort split by protocol, so the program can see which study is absorbing coordinator hours without returning randomizations.
Fig. 2 — GI sponsors & CROs
A sponsor developing a Crohn's therapy sets an endoscopic entry threshold and a prior-biologic cap during protocol design. The consequence — a much smaller eligible pool than the feasibility deck assumed — usually shows up months later as screen failures at every site.
Protocol Reading
Criteria-tightness signals flag the individual clauses — centrally-read SES-CD floors, washout windows, exposure caps — that remove the largest share of otherwise-eligible IBD patients.
TrialFit
Draft criteria can be scored against de-identified illustrative cohorts to compare two versions of an inclusion rule before the protocol is finalized.
Recruitment Analytics
Screen-failure reasons aggregated across sites, so a recurring exclusion becomes an amendment conversation instead of a site-performance conversation.
Fig. 3 — Community gastroenterology
A community GI practice has the IBD population a sponsor wants but no dedicated research infrastructure. Screening happens between clinic sessions, and the practical question is which four patients on next week's schedule are worth a conversation.
Protocol Reading
A plain-language eligibility summary of the sponsor's protocol, with each clause traceable back to the source text for the referring physician.
TrialFit
A short ranked list with the single next item to verify on each candidate — a recent calprotectin, a colonoscopy date, a documented biologic course — rather than a full chart review.
Recruitment Analytics
Screening workload visibility at one-site scale, so the practice can tell the sponsor what its realistic monthly capacity is.
Describe your current IBD recruitment workflow and we will show, against your own protocol, where structured eligibility data would and would not help.