Polnor.
CRO

Run the study across every sponsor, without ever pooling their data.

Sovereign by design: hosted on OVHcloud, infrastructure qualified SecNumCloud 3.2 and HDS-certified. You operate multi-sponsor studies where no one will hand over raw patient data, and rightly so. Polnor runs the same protocol inside each sponsor's own cloud and lets you compare aggregate results. You are the operator, not the custodian.

Hosted on OVHcloudInfra qualified SecNumCloud 3.2HDS-certifiedData in FranceCLOUD Act immune
A worked case

One protocol, three sponsors, no data ever pooled.

A multi-site study for three sponsors who will not share raw data. You define the cohort once, the same standardized pipeline runs in each environment, and only aggregate counts come back. Not a single patient row leaves any sponsor's cloud.

app.your-cro.fr / multisite● health-blind
cro_multisite › omop › eligibility_cohort.sql
▶ Run-- same protocol, runs in each sponsor's cloud SELECT count(DISTINCT person_id) n FROM condition_occurrence c JOIN drug_exposure d USING (person_id) WHERE condition_concept = 'endpoint' AND d.ingredient = 'X';
aggregate across sponsors · 3 sites0 rows exported ✓
siteeligible nevent ratecontributes
Sponsor A12,4803.0%counts only
Sponsor B9,2152.7%counts only
Sponsor C15,9023.4%counts only
pooled estimate37,5973.1%ref

Illustrative interface and figures, shown to explain the workflow. Not results from a Polnor customer.

The features behind it

Everything up to the cohort is automated.

By the time your team writes that query, the hard part is done: the platform has already ingested, de-identified, standardized and quality-checked your data. You start where the question starts.

Automated · standardization

Standardized in every environment, so results are comparable

The same automated pipeline runs identically in each sponsor's cloud: FHIR ingestion, GDPR de-identification with the same presets, OMOP conversion and quality control. Because every site is prepared the same way, the aggregate numbers you compare actually mean the same thing.

OMOP · mappingauto
source→ OMOP conceptstd
atc:Xingredient XS
icd10:I26Pulmonary embolismS
loinc:718-7HemoglobinS
Almost everything is automated

The platform does the plumbing. Your team runs the study.

The repetitive, compliance-heavy work runs itself in every environment, so your study team spends its time on protocol and interpretation, not on reconciling three incompatible datasets.

Automated by Polnor
FHIR / HL7 v2 ingestion · refresh
GDPR de-identification
OMOP conversion · concept mapping
clinical quality control
feature materialization · lineage · access log
Your team decides
the protocol & endpoints
eligibility & cohort definition
which aggregates to compare
the analysis, and the interpretation
Governance

Nothing to exfiltrate, because you never hold the data.

Each sponsor's environment is isolated: their data never mixes with another's and is never pooled. Every access is logged, PHI is classified, and export follows EHDS-aligned manifests. Because the control plane is health-blind and data stays in each sponsor's SecNumCloud/HDS cloud, there is nothing on your side to leak.

Request a demo

One protocol, every sponsor, no data pooled.

30 minutes: we run the pipeline across a mock multi-sponsor study and show how the same standardized logic executes in each environment while only aggregates come back.