US 12518882

Patent Overview — US 12518882 B2

Title: Translation of medical evidence into computational evidence and applications thereof

Assignee: Evidium Inc (original and current; assignment recorded 2025-02-25)

Key dates (as listed): Priority date 2022-04-15; application filed 2025-02-04 (application number US19/045,329); publication US20250182911A1 on 2025-06-05; patent granted and published 2026-01-06; anticipated expiration 2043-04-14. Legal status listed as Active. Inventors listed include Carl Bate, Wian Stipp, Thomas Unger, David A. Epstein, Matthew McSorley, Fady Nakhla, David Robinson, Jennifer May Lee, and Arthur Böök.

Purpose: Medical evidence is described as predominantly narrative and document-based, producing problems such as delay from bench to bedside, ineffective manual search, alert fatigue from hard-coded rules, and sparse feedback from practice to research. The patent addresses this by making medical evidence computational and queryable by any application.

Plain-language scope: A "computational evidence platform" extracts medical evidence or clinical guidelines from any source and places it into a structured computational representation. A database of interlinked computational elements—conditions, diagnostic factors, risk factors, and investigations—lets applications query the evidence and map it to external data such as a patient chart. Embodiments cover: (1) representing clinical concepts as elemental factors and investigations that are shareable across conditions and linked in a database; (2) determining a patient's clinical state from those elements; and (3) determining next-best actions for that patient. The described process may combine ontologies and evidence sources (e.g., SNOMED-CT, LOINC, RxNORM). Stanson Health, rules engines, and SNOMED-CT reasoning limits are discussed as background, not as asserted prior art.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12518882/en

What the excerpt does not establish: It does not establish the full claim scope, prosecution history, validity, ownership history beyond the recorded assignment, or litigation. The excerpt is partial, and it states that priority dates, legal status, and assignee listings are assumptions, not legal conclusions.