Deep 6 AI vs Paradigm Health
The two trial matching platforms that health systems most often shortlist, and they differ in what comes with the software. Deep 6 reads the unstructured record, notes, pathology, genomics and laboratory reports, to match patients and sites in real time, covering the lifecycle from feasibility at study design through enrolment. Paradigm deploys inside the provider record system, reasons over full text notes with language models rather than structured prefilters, and crucially pairs the technology with recruitment staff across a large named provider network. That staffing is usually the difference between a match list and an enrolled patient, because most sites do not have anyone free to work the list. Neither publishes the number that matters most, which is how often an eligible patient is never surfaced at all.
- It reads unstructured clinical data across notes, pathology, genomics and laboratory reports to match patients and sites in real time, and it quantifies how much of the decisive information lives in that unstructured half.
- Functional coverage spans the trial lifecycle from cohort building and feasibility at design through to enrolment, so the same platform serves the sponsor and the site.
- Matching is surfaced with proof, and human research staff validate before anyone is approached, which keeps the recruitment decision where it belongs.
- It deploys inside the provider record system and reasons over full text notes with language models rather than structured prefilters, and published a direct comparison making that case.
- The network is specific and verifiable across dozens of states and well over a hundred provider organisations including designated cancer centres.
- It pairs the software with recruitment staff, so a site is not left to convert matches into enrolments alone.
Side by Side
| Axis | D Deep 6 AI |
P Paradigm Health |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model and Technology Transparency | ||
| Clinical and Operational Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and PHI Stewardship | ||
| HIPAA and BAA Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| FDA and Regulatory Status | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| EHR and Interoperability Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Setting and Specialty Coverage |
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Clinical Decision Support page.
Both carry the documentation bias that defines trial matching and neither publishes it: a patient with a thin or fragmented record matches less often regardless of eligibility, and that population overlaps heavily with the one trials already under enrol. The number to demand from both is the false negative rate on eligibility screening, since an eligible patient who never surfaced is invisible in every metric either reports.
Deep 6 publishes no attestation scoped to the platform, no business associate terms and no governance framework. Paradigm publishes no security attestation and nothing on business associate status. Neither publishes pricing.