Methodology

What this site is

This is an independent research library and directory for biomedical blockchain. It lists projects, organisations, and initiatives that have applied distributed ledger or blockchain designs to problems in healthcare and biomedical research. It publishes research notes that describe the field's major themes. It does not certify, endorse, or recommend any specific project. It does not accept payment for inclusion or placement.

The site is maintained by a small editorial team without commercial relationships to the companies listed. The research notes are written to inform people evaluating the field, not to promote it. The directory is a reference, not a recommendation engine.

Inclusion criteria

A project is considered for inclusion if it meets all three of the following conditions. First, the project has a publicly accessible primary source: a website, a publication, a press release, a regulatory filing, or a data repository that describes what the project does. Second, the project's primary purpose, or a substantial component of it, involves applying blockchain or distributed ledger technology to healthcare, clinical research, pharmaceutical supply chain, or biomedical data. Third, the project has passed the minimum threshold of activity: it has shipped something, entered a pilot, or published technical material that describes a specific implementation rather than only a vision.

Projects that only have a pitch deck are not included. Projects that have changed names, merged, or been acquired are listed under their most recent confirmed identity with a note about the prior identity. Projects that have ceased operations are retained with an inactive label for as long as the historical record is useful.

What is not included

General digital health companies without a specific blockchain or distributed ledger component are not included. Cryptocurrency projects whose connection to healthcare is speculative or promotional are not included. Academic papers are listed in the research section as supporting material but are not directory entries. Consulting firms, advocacy organisations, and standard-setting bodies are not directory entries unless they have also built and deployed something that meets the inclusion criteria above.

Confidence levels

Each directory entry carries a confidence label. The label reflects the quality and quantity of evidence available to the editorial team, not the editorial team's opinion of the project's merit or commercial viability. The five levels are as follows.

Primary is used for projects with direct, confirmable evidence of deployment. The evidence may be a public case study from a named health system, a published technical report, a regulatory submission, or a sufficiently detailed third-party account. At the primary level, the core claim of what the project does has been confirmed through at least one source independent of the project.

Public is used for projects whose public communications, documentation, and technical material support the described scope. No independent confirmation is required at this level. The project has been transparent enough that the editorial team can characterise what it does from primary material, but the characterisation rests on the project's own reporting.

Historical is used for projects that were active in prior periods and have a documented record but are no longer updating public communications. The record is treated as stable for the period in which activity is confirmed. Claims about current operations are not made.

Review is used for projects where the editorial team has questions about whether the entry is accurate, current, or appropriately categorised. Entries in review are visible but labelled accordingly. Review status does not indicate a negative finding; it indicates that the entry is being re-examined.

Inactive is used for projects with confirmed cessation of operations, or with long enough silence across all channels that a reasonable inference of cessation is warranted. Inactive entries are retained as historical record.

Industry focus categories

Each entry is categorised by industry focus. The categories are not mutually exclusive. A project with meaningful activity in two categories is listed in both. The categories are: claims and payment workflows, clinical trials, consent and access management, data audit and compliance infrastructure, electronic health records, genomic data, patient data marketplaces, patient identity, provider credentialing, public health registries, research data provenance, and healthcare supply chain.

The categories were selected to match the empirical distribution of projects in the field as observed over multiple years of monitoring, not to reflect a theoretical taxonomy. They are stable but not permanent. If the field evolves in a direction that makes a new category necessary or an existing category obsolete, the categories will be updated with a note in the changelog.

How new entries are added

The directory is updated through two channels. The editorial team adds entries identified through ongoing monitoring of the field: publications, conference proceedings, press announcements, regulatory filings, and referrals from people with working knowledge of the space. Projects can also submit themselves through the submission page. Self-submitted entries go through the same evaluation process as editorial-identified entries. The submission page describes what information is needed and what to expect after submission.

How entries are updated and corrected

Entries are updated when the editorial team identifies material changes: new funding, new deployment, change of scope, change of name, cessation of activity, or corrections to prior claims. Projects that believe their entry is inaccurate can request a review through the contact page. The request should identify the specific claim in question, the primary source that contradicts it, and the correction proposed. Reviews are conducted editorially, not commercially. The confidence label may change as a result of a review. The entry's content will be updated if the evidence warrants it.

What the site will not claim

The site will not certify that a project is safe, effective, compliant, or fit for any specific purpose. It will not recommend a specific project to a specific buyer. It will not assess the financial condition, litigation status, or commercial viability of any listed organisation. It will not make predictions about which projects will succeed. It will not make claims about the future direction of the field.

These limitations are not evasion. They reflect the actual scope of what an independent directory can know. The site's purpose is to describe the field accurately and usefully. Certification, recommendation, and prediction are different activities and would require a different operating model.

Regulatory and compliance claims in directory entries

When a directory entry includes a compliance or regulatory claim originating from the project itself, the claim is presented as the project's claim, not as a confirmed finding. The confidence label reflects the general evidential basis for the entry but does not serve as a finding on specific compliance claims. Readers assessing a specific project's regulatory status should consult primary sources, including regulatory filings, and should not rely on the directory as a compliance reference.

Privacy claims in directory entries

Privacy claims are treated the same way as compliance claims. When a project asserts that it protects patient data through a specific mechanism, that claim is presented as the project's framing. The editorial team does not audit implementations. A project that asserts an off-chain data design has not had that assertion independently audited against its actual implementation. The confidence label reflects the quality of the public record, not the rigour of the implementation.

Research notes

The research notes on this site are written by the editorial team and represent the team's reading of the field based on the public record, published literature, and direct monitoring of the space. They are not peer-reviewed academic articles. They are not regulatory guidance. They are designed to give readers an informed baseline for understanding major themes and recurring design questions in biomedical blockchain. References to specific standards or regulatory bodies link to the relevant primary sources rather than to other commentary.

Outbound links

The site links to a small set of external primary sources in the research notes. External links are restricted to direct citations of primary sources. The site does not participate in affiliate programmes or link exchanges. It does not add links to commercial or promotional material. Each external link points to the specific primary document being referenced. The list of approved external sources is reviewed editorially and is not expanded to accommodate requests.

Scope of the directory over time

The directory reflects the field as the editorial team can observe it from public sources. Projects exist that are not yet listed. Projects listed may have changed since the last update. The directory is a continuously updated reference, not a complete census. The changelog records material updates to the site's structure, categories, and policies. Individual entry updates are reflected in the entries themselves rather than in the changelog.