A map of Indian trial sites and investigators, built for sponsor feasibility
TL;DR Gleanwick joins India's public trial registry, regulator permission data and published papers into one graph of sites, investigators and past trials. Sponsors and contract research organisations use it to shortlist Indian sites for a new study in days. They pay a yearly subscription plus a fee per feasibility report.
In my view, picking Indian trial sites still runs mostly on questionnaires and on who knows whom. The public data exists but it's scattered all over the place. India's registry held 1,385 phase III trials between 2007 and mid-2025, and 90.7% of them ran at more than one centre[1]. Those records name investigators, yet the published analysis doesn't look at investigator track record[1].
Sites cluster heavily too. Across 1,049 sites in Indian phase 3 trials, 34.5% sat in the Western zone and 1.7% in the North-East[2]. And joining sources is no easy task - one study couldn't find registry entries for 12% of trials that held a regulator permission letter[3].
What it does, in regulatory terms: a research-planning tool built on public registry and publication data. It handles no patient data, makes no clinical claims and is not a medical device. The sponsor stays responsible for site selection under the New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019.
Gleanwick reads every registry record, links each investigator and hospital across spelling variants and attaches their papers and past studies. A planner types an indication and phase. The tool returns sites that ran similar trials, how recently, under which investigator, and where the gaps are, such as a district with high disease burden and no recent trial. Every claim links back to its public record, so a planner can check it.
The seed proposed a general knowledge graph to speed up medical research. I narrowed it because "research" has no single buyer. Site feasibility does, and it's the sponsor's study start-up team, which loses weeks every time a site under-enrols.
The user is a feasibility or study start-up manager. The payer is an Indian drug or device sponsor running domestic trials, or a mid-sized CRO bidding for global studies with Indian sites. I found no public price for feasibility tools. Our assumption is an annual subscription in the low lakhs, plus a per-study report fee for occasional buyers.
Registrations have grown, with 979 phase III trials registered in 2015–2025 against 406 in the eight years before[1]. The 2019 rules require registration before the first patient is enrolled and set a thirty-working-day decision for drugs developed in India[4], which pushes sponsors to get sites started fast. Language models now make matching messy names across sources cheap.
There's no public figure for what Indian sponsors spend on feasibility. The narrowest signal is volume - nearly 1,000 phase III registrations in a decade, with 84.7% industry-sponsored over the full period[1], and each one needs a site list. Treat any global feasibility market figure as adjacent only.
The largest global clinical research firm sells a feasibility product that combines investigator surveys, confidentiality agreements and its own site data[5]. It's built for large global sponsors. The registry itself is public and searchable but offers no investigator view[6]. I found no Indian company selling a registry-based site graph. The gap is a cheaper, India-deep tool for domestic sponsors and smaller CROs.
| Difficulty | Moderate (37/100) |
| Starting capital | ₹45–80 L |
| Time to launch | 6–9 months |
The graph is the easy half. The hard half is proving that registry history predicts enrolment, since registry records don't report how many patients each site actually recruited. You'll need site performance data from early clients to calibrate the rankings.
The vendor needs no licence. Gleanwick handles no patients and makes no clinical claims, and the sponsor keeps responsibility for site choice.
Building this outside India? The categories above usually have a local equivalent, so check with your own regulator.
Don't let AI make the site decision. Registry records don't show enrolment per site, so the sponsor's team must check every shortlist.
Want to work out the AI layer for Gleanwick? Talk to Yash →
Worth trying if you've done feasibility at a CRO and know the buyers. A pure data team without trial operations experience will build a pretty map that nobody trusts, simple as that. Prove first that your shortlist for two past studies matches the sites that actually enrolled well.
Plan for roughly ₹45–80 L, mostly on data engineering, a trial-operations expert and early sponsor pilots.
No vendor licence, since the tool handles no patient data. You must follow CTRI's terms of use and the DPDP Act for investigator contact details.
Yes, most markets have a public trial registry. Check its reuse terms and your local data protection law before you build on it.
The free Gleanwick validation kit has the line-by-line capital breakdown, the effort scoring, the trial-rules and data-protection checklist, a 14-day validation sprint with pass/fail targets, a 90-day launch plan, 10 interview questions for feasibility managers, and 5 assumptions to test. Download the kit →
Thinking about building Gleanwick or something close to it? The make-or-break work is showing that registry history predicts which sites will actually enrol, and I'm happy to help you test that early. If you need a hand, you know where to find me. Talk to Yash →
For illustration only. Names are fictional and ideas hypothetical; sourced facts are real but may be out of date. Nothing here is legal, financial or professional advice, and Yash Khatri is not personally liable for any use of it. Read the full disclaimer.