Good afternoon, and welcome to today's webinar hosted by Diaceutics to discuss the company's full year 2025 results issued earlier today. My name is Simon Geelon, and I manage Diaceutics IR program. On the call today to discuss the results are Ryan Keeling, CEO, and Nick Roberts, CFO. Before I hand it over to Ryan for his formal remarks, I will draw your attention to the forward-looking statement slide in our presentation, which is on screen now and can also be downloaded at diaceutics.com. At this time, I will now turn the call over to Ryan. Ryan, please go ahead. Thank you, Simon. Good afternoon and good morning, everybody, from a very warm, should I say hot, London, where we are on day one of our investor roadshow. Delighted you all could make some time to be with us today. Nick and I are going to walk you through the highlights of 2025 of which there are many. Wanted to start at maybe taking a step back and looking at the 2025 year as a whole. It was an important year for Diaceutics and in many ways a validating year for the model. We delivered 20% revenue growth, and that was 24% at constant currency, in what was probably the most challenging commercial environment we've experienced, in the U.S. pharma market, certainly in the time, trading history of Diaceutics. Despite that disruption across the sector, particularly through Q2 and Q3, where we saw quite significant shifts in policy and ultimately the operating environment for our customers. We still felt we put in a very strong year. We expanded ARR by 19%. We increased our adjusted EBITDA by 80% to GBP 7.6 million. We delivered a 20% EBITDA margin and returned the business to profitability. More importantly, and very aligned to the strategy that we are on as a business, the quality and visibility of the revenue base continued to improve. We closed the year with a record GBP 38.9 million in order book, including GBP 21.1 million visibility into FY 2026, giving us increased visibility over the year's revenue and indeed 2027 and 2028 are also building well. We also grew alongside subscription revenue, enterprise engagements and PMx adoption. All of these we'll get into more detail in a moment. Strategically, the business strengthened meaningfully during the year. We now have 10 enterprise-wide pharma engagements. We work across 95 brands and 53 customers. We signed our second PMx customer. Really symbolic for us and we'll talk a lot more today about PMx. It has a real halo effect on the business and is dragging up the average revenue per brand across the portfolio. Behind PMx, we now have a pipeline of 24 potential PMx opportunities and really heartened to see that eight of those are already spending with us today. They're not spending at PMx levels. We can't call them PMx customers yet. The strategy there is to grow these customers that we have identified as PMx targets. We're having that conversation with them. We've pitched PMx to them from day one. These are biotechs predominantly. We believe that we can convert a sizable number of those into full-blown PMx opportunities, where we are extracting $2 million, $3 million, $4 million per year, average revenue. We also continue to invest deliberately in the long-term scalability and strategic value of the platform, particularly through U.S.-focused data assets and support our Precision for All strategy. We'll talk a lot about Precision for All. It's a very exciting growth opportunity. You heard us last year talk about the TAM expansion and what we saw there. Precision for All is really the further articulated view on what that TAM expansion could look like. We have a lot of validation now through existing sales into customers that are embracing that Precision for All approach. Nick is going to walk through the financials in more detail, including cash, working capital. I know that's a key area to dig into today as per some of the analyst notes that are out. We'll get into that. At a high level, we view 2025 as a year where the business became more recurring, more visible, more profitable and more strategically embedded with customers. The fundamentals of this business are really going from strength to strength. We exit the year stronger. As I said, we have more customers, more brands, more recurring revenue, higher visibility, expanding margins and a significantly larger long-term addressable market opportunity. Sets us up really well for continued growth, continued success as we dive more into the financials and ultimately the narrative, we can bring some of this to life for you. I'm going to pass now to Nick, my CFO, to walk you through some of the financials. Next slide, Simon. Thank you. Over to you, Nick. Thanks, Ryan. Yeah. Sorry about that. My bad. So just a- There you go. Apologies. Sorry about that. Yes, I'll just cover off briefly, and I think Ryan's touched on many of these points, but the financial strengths of the business, both seen in 2025 and in past years, and hopefully you're seeing build up in the guidance for future years as well. A return to profitability in 2025, I think a really important milestone as planned, and with margins that we expect to see improve over time. Whether that be gross profit margins, adjusted EBITDA margins or indeed, overall profitability, profit before tax. A revenue CAGR over the last three years of 25%, again echoed in 2025's result, driven by the number of brands that we're working with and ultimately number of customers and the average revenue per brand. They're the two important drivers. A bit later, I'll talk about the addressable market opportunity and how we're driving to more customers, more brands, and how we've invested in data to do that. We see growing ARR revenues and future visibility through an increased order book. Ryan already mentioned 10 enterprise-wide engagements with blue-chip pharma customers, which is fantastic. A strong balance sheet, GBP 7.3 million of cash and a reminder we have no debt. Simon, can we go to the next slide, please. Let me just cover off the key financial metrics for the year. We have revenue. I see Simon's just trying to get the right slide there, but I'm sure we'll get there in a minute. Let me carry on talking. We have revenue of GBP 38.4 million, up 20%, and that's 24% on a constant currency basis. Again, I already spoke to this, about 25% three-year CAGR, which is fantastic top line growth and as Ryan said, in what is challenging market conditions for pharma. The ARR is up to GBP 20 million, up from GBP 16.8 million, up 19%, almost 20%. The NRR for last year was 105%. That's down 4 percentage points on 2024. We did see and we did observe some churn earlier in the year, predominantly because of those more challenging market conditions for pharma, but are very comfortable that that is under control. We've seen a trend of higher NRR both in the back half of 2025 and the start of 2026, which is really important. Ryan already spoke very nicely to our order book. We're seeing growth there, not just near term in terms of the next 12 months, but we're seeing a return to growth in the 24 and 36-month outlook as well. That's giving us confidence and it's giving us more visibility over our revenue and our future growth rates. On to profitability. Our gross profit margin reduced slightly from 87% to 82%. The primary reason, indeed the whole reason for that reduction in gross margin was some data spend, GBP 2 million of data spend, which was expensed through the P&L through COGS, during 2025. That data was a new data set. There are several new data sets in there, and was an opportunity to start increasing and investing in future TAM areas. I'll talk more about that investment and what it opens up in terms of TAM and market opportunity on a later slide. The adjusted EBITDA for 2025 was GBP 7.6 million, slightly ahead of consensus guidance. That's up 80% and a margin of 20%. That's up from 13% margin and GBP 4.2 million adjusted EBITDA in 2024. A significant milestone. It's that drive and operational scale that we're seeing drop down further. Profit before tax GBP 300,000, just above break even compared to a loss before tax of GBP 1.9 million in 2024. Definitely seeing that increase in both revenue growth scale in terms of profitability and that dropping down to overall profit. I'll just finish on the cash here. We finished the cash at GBP 7.3 million, so that's down on the GBP 12.7 million at the end of 2024, and a cash outflow of GBP 5.3 million. The primary reasons for driving that free cash outflow, I mentioned earlier, the GBP 2 million we spent on data and expanded TAM that opens up. Also we noticed, particularly during Q3 and then into Q4, later phasing of revenues. Pharma pausing some of its spending decisions in the year, making those decisions, bringing them back online later in the year. That in itself, although the revenue landed in Q4, then the invoicing, the cash has then pushed across the year-end and into early 2026. We also saw pharma take some shorter-term decisions around delaying credit terms. We still have no bad debts in the business, which is very positive and probably expected given the blue-chip customer base we have. It still meant that they have pushed out their credit terms, even though those aren't bad debts. Finally, just in terms of the cash, and we can touch on this in a bit more detail. We saw some M&A spend during the year around about GBP 500,000 as we start to invest in and explore non-organic growth methods to augment that strong 25% three-year CAGR that we have. Simon, can we go to the next slide? Oh, sorry, you're already there. I'll come back in. Thank you, Nick. For those of you who have been following us for some time, you'll have seen this slide every time we present. I'll not deliberate on it too long, just to remind us kind of what the fundamentals of the business model is. We have invested over the last 10 years in building out a network of laboratories that we partner with in order to get access to diagnostic information pertaining to what disease a patient has. I'm obviously simplifying here quite significantly. That data in itself is transactional data that is derived from the clinical diagnostic activity performed by these laboratories. The real value to us is it tells us in close to real time what disease a particular patient has, assuming, of course, that disease is diagnosed with a lab test. That is the data that is effectively the lifeblood of Diaceutics. We leverage that in our lead product called Signal, but we've also built a series of services and other products that accompany Signal and our advisory services that now form a full suite. You've heard us reference PMx, and we'll talk more to that. That really is the foundation of PMx is the lab network, the data, and then ultimately delivered through our DXRX platform. The problem that we're solving here is effectively helping pharmaceutical customers, large and small, to better target, better promote a potential treatment to a physician who has a patient that is very recently diagnosed with a disease that the drug is intended to treat. That's different to how the market approaches drug promotion and targeting today. It's something that is both helpful in terms of driving top-line performance but also managing their cost base, giving us a much more targeted and less resource-intensive way to go to market. Next slide, please, Simon. Core to what we have been investing in as a business, and this is largely investments that we started in 2023, 2024, and again in 2025, is how we have embedded AI. I feel we were a very early adopter of AI. If you go back to some of our really early press releases and RNS, you'll see that we had a partnership with Intel as far back as 2018. I remember when they shipped us some hardware. It was half the size of our office at that time. We've come quite a long way in terms of the agentic AI that we're leveraging today in the cloud. We feel that Diaceutics will be an AI winner if we aren't already. We are doing the obvious things you would expect any business today to be doing with AI in terms of operational leverage. The things that AI are really good at as it pertains to data operations, ingestion, normalization, unstructured extraction, et cetera. We have really heavily adopted AI and are, I believe, on the outer edge of performance there as it pertains to that particular use case. We've also embedded AI now in our product roadmap, so our products are better informed and ultimately leveraging AI as we go to customers, and that's effectively manifesting in enhancements to how we signal and activate through our data. That includes integration into our customers' workflow intelligence and starting to get toward next-best-action capabilities. We're not a next-best-action company. There's lots out there who are doing that. We're certainly enabling and working around that to better inform next-best-action. The moat is obviously really important as we look at the defensibility of our business. Proprietary data is core to that moat. How we've leveraged AI to really combine our proprietary diagnostic data, disease-specific logic, and workflow integration, making it harder to replicate what we do with laboratories. I think that's something that is ultimately alongside the AI enablement in the product roadmap and how it's embedded in our data operations, gives us a real enabler in AI. We think we will be an AI winner here in terms of the business we have, the expectations of customers, and how we're leveraging it in the business today, as well as helping us actually defend the business model. Certainly from an AI native Claude-type threat. We have key assets here that are very hard to replicate even for AI than they would have been, and the fundamentals are still very secure. Next slide, please. Thank you. Slightly reworked this slide. This is our lead product, Signal, and effectively what we want to call out here is that we now have a lot of evidence to show how Signal is impacting and benefiting our customers in the market. Remember, the challenge here is that we're trying to identify patients in as close to real-time as possible that have a specific, in this instance, a mutation in lung cancer. We're trying to intervene with the treating physician for that patient at a moment in time when there's a treatment decision being made. The timing of that is really critical. The impact ultimately for our customer is that they get more patients on the drug. In this example, this is real customer data shared back with us. We're showing a sustained uplift where effectively after we switched on our Signal product, we more or less double the number of patients, and that's growing slightly over time. Key to this is it's sustaining. It doesn't drop off because ultimately it's not that we're finding more physicians. The real-time nature of the data is critical in terms of how it's enabling pharma to promote their asset, their brand, to a physician at exactly the right moment. The ROI here you can see is clearly outlined, and our ROI analysis is, I guess, somewhat subjective in that you have to have a lot of variables feeding into it, drug pricing, and then there's discounting that can apply after the effect, et cetera. How long the patient stays on drug. There's lots of variables. You guys as analysts will understand those. On average, and as we look across the portfolio, it is not inconceivable to see that our ROI is very significant. In this example, it's $350 for every dollar they're investing with Diaceutics. Next slide. Then I'll pass back to Nick. Again, for those of you who have been following us, you'll have seen that while the business has been very focused on precision medicine since its inception, that's the thing that has been most consistent about Diaceutics is we've been very focused on precision medicine. To a large extent, that has meant oncology, precision medicine oncology. It's kind of where it shines brightest. Through engaging with our customers over the last few years, we can see that they want to apply our model into non-precision medicine areas. These are areas like immunology, cardiology, nephrology, and areas that are diseases that are identified and diagnosed with a lab test. They wouldn't be precision medicine per se, by the strictest definition. They don't have a biomarker or companion diagnostic type play the way we see in oncology. It's very clear that the advantages that we have in precision medicine around data timeliness and patient characterization are also very applicable outside of precision medicine. Precision for All is our, effectively the concept behind how we want to go to market to address a much broader market opportunity. We are already selling to customers that are in non-precision medicine, and that's some of our largest customers, but also some brand new customers. Some of the data that we acquired off the back end of last year that Nick referred to was to enable that growth into Precision for All, and really chase that TAM expansion opportunity. We'll report out as we go on this, because we feel it's a very exciting evolution for the business and something that now has real evidence to support our ambition into be much more enterprise-wide for our customers. To put that in context, if you take any typical big pharma today, top 10 pharma, those who have a precision medicine focus, maybe 25%, 30% of their brands are precision medicine. If we apply a Precision for All lens, you're now talking about maybe 80% of their brands. That makes us much more applicable at an enterprise level and affords us the opportunity to perhaps start to think about how we sell Diaceutics at an enterprise level beyond the siloed brand approach that we're taking today. Later in the year, we will relaunch the brand. We've been doing some significant work with our marketing agency to lift the brand in the first place. When I say relaunch, this will be the first time we've ever done any significant marketing. Core to that principle will be positioning Diaceutics to be very applicable in Precision for All as opposed to the more pigeonholed precision medicine that we've been in historically. Next slide, Simon. Nick, do you want to talk to PMx? Yes. Thanks, Ryan. I think most of you are familiar, but let me just touch on what PMx is. We launched this around our commercialization solution. As it says in the top line here, it's insight-led, so it's data-led. Expert-built commercialization model specifically for precision medicine and rare disease therapies. Around our existing solutions, it's tailored for a customer to ensure that you're hitting all of these five points below to ensure that the customer is understanding the market and the behavior of prescribing and testing in that market, driving faster test adoption, finding patients. Talking to that ROI, that case study that Ryan showed earlier. It's about personalized direct-to-physician omnichannels of digital marketing, right at the point of time where they're making treatment decisions. It's about that last mile, which is driving education and adoption through conversation at the point where education awareness is needed, and that physician is making a treatment decision on patients. This is absolutely key and really fundamental to our data set and the way that we've built our business. We currently have two PMx agreements which are live. Ryan mentioned these earlier. One is with Partner Therapeutics, who we've been working with for around about 18 months. The other one was a novel U.S. oncology asset with a biotech, who we started working with in Q3 of 2025. This PMx agreement started off as a Signal. It slowly moved on to Physician Engage, and then it's finally gone on to the Expert Exchange, that peer-to-peer conversation, and those being the three tenants of PMx, that became the PMx engagement at the end of last year. PMx has a significant impact on not just the number of brands that we can add, but also the average revenue per brand. The average revenue per brand across all of our brands is some GBP 430,000 per year. The average revenue per PMx brand is between GBP 1.5 million-GBP 3 million of revenue per year. A significant multiple, three to six times. We have 24 PMx pipeline opportunities, which are ideally moving towards PMx, but at the very least, we will look to move them to be customers of Diaceutics and engage around one of our solutions, be it Physician Engage or Signal, or some of our consulting and scientific services. We have eight potential PMx customers that are currently buying solutions for us, that we have targeted and had discussions to move them on that journey from a buyer of one service to a buyer of multiple, and ultimately to PMx solution. Simon, could you go to the next slide, please? I won't spend too long on this slide. We've had this in the deck in the past. It outlines what are the five key stages that our customers think about launching their brands into the market, and it links our individual solutions below those. If you would like, that's the à la carte menu that customers can buy from, that we sell from, and if they were to adopt the three key tenets of that plus some additional services, they effectively get the PMx wrapper, and that's an end-to-end solution which would cover the dark blue on the left all the way through to the green on the right. Next slide, please, Simon. I'll just finish off on PMx by articulating some of the tangible results we're seeing. First of all, and I talked to this earlier, it's a significant increase in the average revenue per therapeutic brand that Diaceutics is generating from that some GBP 400,000 to GBP 3 million of revenue per year per brand. The reason customers are buying it and the reason it's getting traction is because of the results, which are all very measurable given our targeted data and ability to measure the ROI. We've seen in cases that we're actually deploying 100% increase in testing. We've seen 82% of healthcare professionals, such as physicians, reporting an increased understanding of the disease they're interested in. Most importantly, almost 60% of patient signals have engaged and gone on to a treatment. That is the ROI that our customers see. It's the conversion from awareness of a potential patient to that patient going onto drug. These are very tangible results. Next slide, please, Simon. I mentioned the market opportunity slide, and I'd just like to take a few minutes to talk about this. We set this out in an earlier RNS last year about the market opportunity, the number of brands, and how we're looking to grow that. The way that we think about 2025 in particular was that those top boxes. Increasing the penetration in our existing market. As Ryan said earlier, we're working with some 95 therapeutic brands across 53 customers in 2025 of a total market opportunity in precision medicine of some 250. We're making really strong progress there in terms of our ARR and the number of brands we're working with. What the investment in the two million of data during 2025 at the end of 2025 really enabled, was us to expand into that precision area. That next now allows us to move from the 250 Nick, we've lost you there with your sound. Will you just put on your microphone, please? Sorry about that, Simon. I think we had a network issue there. Let me continue, as Ryan joins. That investment, and that decrease in cash that we saw at end of 2025 will enable continued top-line growth, continued expansion of our margins, more profitability, and ultimately cash flow generation in 2026 and beyond. The final box here, as I just conclude on the addressable market, is that we will see those 560 brands, so the precision medicine plus the Precision for All, continue to expand over the next 5 years or so as more drugs come to market that are diagnostically enabled. We are seeing a growth rate of around about 13% overall in the industry. We expect that to grow from 560 to just over 1,000 by 2030. Simon, can we go to the next slide, please? I know we've included this slide in decks gone past, and I think it's really important to articulate that there are a lot of really highly qualified individuals in our business that make this success happen and ensure that we're growing, we're innovating, and we're driving this business to really impact patient lives. It's not just Ryan, myself, and Jordan that you see on these calls. There's a whole suite of individuals and indeed, as at the end of 2025, 205 employees in total. Thanks, Simon. I'll start off by concluding just on the final slide here, and then I think we're gonna open up for questions, just around the investment case and how we're gonna continue driving customer success. Our strong competitive advantage, we talked about, Ryan talked about our unique network of labs, data that derive from those labs, and the platform enabled by AI that's enabling us to scale and drive profitability in our business. It's a significant and compelling value proposition for our customers. Really outlined in that 59% of physicians acting on, in PMx, the opportunities, the patients that we're flagging to them. In here, we articulate $ 100 for every $ 1 invested, and we think that that is on the light side as proven out by some of our case studies. Our financial strength is continuing to grow. High margins, recurring revenue, high growth rates. In 2026 and beyond, that move to cash flow generation as well. We have a demonstrable track record in precision medicine now expanding out to Precision for All. Really a blue-chip customer base, that is probably the envy of many pharma services and tech companies. We're working with 18 of the top 20 global pharma customers. If we go onto the last slide, Simon, I think I'll just hand over to Ryan in case he wanted to make any final remarks. Yes. Thank you, Nick. Apologies, a bit of a technical issue for me there. I think we're going to pass back now to Simon. I think you're going to do some Q&A. Yeah. Please. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. Please raise your hand if you wish to ask a question. We will endeavor to get to as many as possible online today. Should we not get to all the questions in the time that we have remaining, please do follow up with us at investorrelations@diaceutics.com if you wish to discuss anything raised on today's webinar in more detail. Given the number of attendees we have online today, I would ask our covering sell-side analysts to restrict your first turn to two questions, not that you'll probably listen to me. Then go back in the queue if you have any more. We will now take our first question from Chris Glasper at Singer Capital Markets. Chris, please unmute and go ahead. Yeah. Afternoon, guys. Hey, Chris. Hey. Yes, I do have more than two questions, but I will limit myself. Just on the cash flow, obviously, you mentioned it upfront around the working capital, and the change in payment terms, and how that's impacting on your working capital cycle at the moment. Really just a bit of color again on exactly what the dynamics are there, whether it's related to the longer contract durations, whether it's purely customer-led, and what you, if anything, you can do to improve your receivables collections? Yeah. No, great question. Thanks, Chris. I'll let Ryan come in at the end if he wants to, but let me start off by saying, yeah, I think what we saw is customer-led. If I think about the market conditions that were in 2025, so some of the pressure that pharma came under from the administrative changes that were made in the U.S. around tariffs and drug pricing. There was certainly a pause, and that meant that their spending and therefore our revenue, our pipeline closing shifted right during 2025. That late phase in your revenue driven by, I'd say broadly across the top 18 global pharma, an increase or a desire to increase the credit terms with us meant that we saw that the cash shift to the right. Instead of landing in Q4, it's landed the other side of the year-end. We expect that to, I think, continue on an ongoing basis. We shouldn't just accept the status quo there. There are things that we can do and things that I've asked the business to do, and that's anything from education with sales teams around using invoice intervals and credit terms to help them with their own contract negotiations, whether it be price or term or the type of product. I've asked finance to look at ways that we could speed up contract to invoice processes and how we can recover debts quicker from customers, and legal to help us around some of the commercial terms or standard terms that we set with our customers. There's definitely behaviors that we can drive in the business, and we will be driving. We have started in 2026, and I expect to see some improvements there. Of course, as we embed ourselves with the top pharma companies, and we start to move on to preferred vendor status, there is also another opportunity there to help negotiate and bring those credit terms, which they've been pushing out, to bring those back down to a level which we feel would be more comfortable. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Just on M&A, obviously, you've been incurring some exceptional charges which are reasonably punchy, I guess, in the context of your business at the moment. Just to comment really on your firepower, given the lower cash levels. Appreciate you've got a small overdraft facility as well. A bit more color on kind of what you're looking to achieve with M&A, what kind of size of deal we might be thinking about here. Yes, Chris, I can come in and then maybe Nick will add a bit more color. Look, ultimately as a board, we are always keen to fully understand where the potential shareholder value in this business is. Therefore, we are exploring or have historically explored all avenues. Through 2025, we did embark on some M&A activity as it pertained to particularly looking at U.S. acquisition that would bolster us strategically in so many areas. Obviously, we're expanding in the U.S. in terms of our sales team and headcount. We also have a significant level of data partners and lab partnerships in the U.S., the entirety of our customer base is in the U.S. It makes strategic sense for us to look at the U.S. as a market. We identified some potential targets, big and small, and we've looked at a range of options for the business to ultimately grow on. These are very strategically aligned to where we want to go. To do that properly, it requires investment. Yes, you could look at the investment we made last year as significant for a business of our size, but we wanted to do it right. While that's expensive, it's even more expensive to do it wrong. We didn't want to end up going down the route of potentially acquiring something or trying to acquire something that wasn't the right strategic fit. There's also a lot of value that we've got from the business in terms of that journey. Bit harder to see that value. Some of it's less tangible and more strategic in nature. It was very intentional. What we did was heavily supported by the board. We had the right advisors around us, and I think there's a lot of value generated through that activity. We're comfortable that we did it. Unfortunately, there isn't a deal to announce which would obviously have justified the spend, but I think the value that the business got is significant. Yeah. Just to add, as Ryan said, not an insignificant amount, but of course, we wouldn't have made that investment unless, one, we believed it was the right thing and secondly, we could afford to do that. We could both in terms of the cash we have available to us and the profitability in the new year. We're still able, obviously, to manage overall profitability, which is a key message to the market that we said we'd do in 2025, and we delivered on. That's in spite of having those additional costs as well. They truly are exceptionals, Chris. We're not going to incur those every year. Yeah. Would you expect any deal to be accretive? Would it contribute to your bottom line into cash flow? Yes. There's obviously a range of different companies you look at, and some of them are pre-profit, albeit it'll be at a smaller scale. We would expect any acquisition to add to our top line. We're looking at opportunities to jump our own growth strategy forward one or two years. We'd have to take careful consideration around what that meant to the overall group consolidated profitability, our cash flow, and that sort of thing. We'd make sure that it was obviously a sustainable and accretive acquisition at that point in time. Great. Thanks. I'll jump back in the queue. Thanks. We'll take our next question from Natalia Webster at RBC Capital Markets. Natalia, please unmute and go ahead. Hi, this is Charles Weston on for Natalia. Hi, Charles. Hello. Thanks for taking the questions. My two, first of all, Precision for All. Can you give us some examples of what Precision for All would be in terms of actual potential use cases? Sure that you might be looking at that are not precision medicine? Secondly, your data is clearly an AI's dream. What are you doing to protect the moat around the lab data? Does the advent of AI's innovation recently make it easier for others to try and get access to the same data? On that topic, sorry, this might be a third question. On that topic, are you seeing any change in the rate of consolidation of labs? Thank you. Yeah. Charles, very smart way to get three questions in. I'll answer parts two A and B in a minute. Sorry, as I said that, I forgot your first question. Just remind me. It was examples of Precision for All. Oh, example. Yes, of course. Yes, of course. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Let me give you a few live examples. We are increasingly doing a lot of work in renal disease. Renal disease is diagnosed with lab testing of the blood, and it's quite a significant growth area for pharma today. Certainly is not considered precision medicine in the classic sense. We're working with some of our key customers in renal, so there's a good example. Cardiovascular is another, where there's a test that's been around for a very long time, Lp(a) or "L-P-little-A" as it's known. There are new drug targets coming to market that are very focused on Lp(a). There's another good example of where it's a very different market approach. This cardiovascular disease, significantly higher numbers of patients than we would see typically in our kind of Precision medicine, rare disease area. Very aligned to what we're trying to do with Precision for All. You can really go much broader. Look, we're starting to sell data now into the GLP-1 space, where later entrants into that market are differentiating themselves by being more effective in patients with certain markers that are elevated. There's a classic case of a marker we never thought would be applicable to our approach, but we have the data. We have more of that data now than we ever had, based on some of the investment we did last year. The premise here is that we can still get to those physicians at a moment in time when their treatment decision is very relevant, i.e., right in that timeframe window. We're not sending a sales rep in to talk to the physician like we would do in precision medicine and rare disease. We're not targeting on a per-patient level like we were. We are optimizing the marketing and the outreach and promotion that these pharma companies are taking, and our data is second to none when it comes to that real-time targeting. On your second question around AI and ultimately the labs, and then I'll talk about consolidation. One of the things that I'm not sure we've ever actually spoken to the market about is just how challenging it is to onboard some of the labs or our data suppliers that we work with. Takes about two years, and that two years of work is not like a technology integration. That's working with them to understand, do they have the data rights? Do they have the right compliance models, or can they be HIPAA-compliant? Remember, a lot of the partners that we work with have never done anything with their data before. We're the first there to really engage with them. That's, on average, a two-year journey to bring on a new partner. We've done less of that in the last few years because we obviously really heavily invested in it through 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. That still remains a significant moat and a significant hurdle for others to come. It's not just a technology requirement to engage those partners. Remember, a lot of the data partners we work with are small-medium labs that are small volumes in themselves and less compelling. It's only in aggregate form that that makes a whole lot of sense. There's defensibility there as it pertains to the sheer number of partners we have, what that ultimately represents in terms of N of labs, and we're also leveraging AI as it pertains to making that operation more effective. We're as equally capable as anyone else as leveraging AI to make that more productive and ultimately a higher quality. We believe that given the head start we have, which is very significant for this type of offering, we can be a winner here from an AI perspective. Lastly, your question, could be, was in consolidation. We do see consolidation in the market, and we see about 5% churn. 5%-10% churn, depending on the year in our lab network. Majority of that is due to consolidation, acquisition primarily of some of the smaller labs by bigger lab chains. Also we're seeing new labs created all the time, and the availability of technology and the opportunity for a lab to start to offer more complex testing, even if it's a small local lab, is something that is a trend that we really hooked into and have benefited from over the last few years. There's more molecular and genomic testing being done now in a local lab than ever before. That's because it's much easier due to the availability of technology and bioinformatics pipelines, et cetera, all built into the instrumentation that the local hospital lab can run a genomic panel on their patients without having to send out to one of the big labs. That's a trend that we've double-clicked on and are really benefiting from. Thanks very much. Thanks, Charles. Thank you. We'll take our next question from Dr. Julie Simmonds of Panmure Liberum. Julie, please unmute and go ahead. Thank you very much. Couple of questions. Firstly, just extending on from the questions on the lab network. I'm just wondering how the lab network suits now you're shifting towards Precision for All. Is it going to be the same sorts of labs given that it might be slightly less genetic testing from what you're talking about than maybe with the? Yeah your sort of historic oncology focus? They're different labs, Julie. With a different focus, we're trying to be very intentional there in terms of where we target, as we have been historically with the lab network. We've talked in the past about the fact that we now have a multimodal data set, and what that effectively means is we're not just reliant on pure lab data anymore. We bring in other types of diagnostic data sets. While lab is absolutely the cornerstone to that and is our key differentiator, we are augmenting it with other types of data. That could be everything from social determinants of health data through to imaging data, through to other types of data like insurance claims and EMR, et cetera. The network of data suppliers, I guess, we have is broadening out. We're sticking with the lab network framework and conventions, but within that it is more diverse to your point. Some of this data exists beyond the core labs that we would have worked with in the past. Which actually brings me very nicely onto my next question, which is about the cost of data that you're now building into this. Clearly, there was an extra GBP 2 million that came into the cost of sales this year. Yet that number continues to rise. Is there a point at which it sort of starts to even out, or is it always going to go up as a proportion of the revenue? How do you see that happening? I'll give you my view and then Nick can give you the financial view of it with actual real numbers. Firstly, yeah, the investment in data is intentional, so the cost has not increased in terms of the cost per data set or cost per patient. We're not seeing that. We're not even seeing that raised go up at an inflationary rate, which is what we've modeled. It's been fairly static. Where we are bringing in more data to increase our coverage or to allow us to compete in new therapeutic areas where we are buying more data to the effect. Again, these are strategic calls that we're making so that the data we have today is fit for purpose to service the customers we have and grow at the 20%-25% rate that we're projecting in the market. To grow beyond that, it would be prudent and we would want to invest more in data. As we're able to do that, it makes a lot of sense strategically to this business. We just need to manage that in terms of cost, EBITDA, and ultimately cash generation. There's peaks and troughs, and sometimes you're buying data ahead of time, have to catch up, et cetera. Some of that's apparent right now today. We're certainly beyond an inflection point in terms of being able to leverage and monetize the data. We see broader opportunity with Precision for All to grow. It's prudent to bring on data when strategically sensible for us to do so. Yeah. Julie, just to add to that. The data spent at the end of or during 2025 important to help us open up that TAM. That was a significant one-off spend. That was for me to acquire retrospective data sets and really get ourselves A good base in these Precision for All medicines. The cost of that, if we decided to continue to adopt all of that data spend on an ongoing basis, wouldn't be as much, as you can imagine, to refresh that on a quarterly or whatever basis we decide to contract with the labs or partners with. As we continue to invest in that cost would be capitalized, which has a different impact, obviously, on the P&L. Still has the same cash impact, and we'd ensure that that is within the envelope of what we're expecting over the foreseeable future. We saw GBP 6.5 million worth of capitalized data spend in 2025. Some of that was a result of duplicate claims data, because we changed our claims provider. A large portion of that would be replicated in future years, and I think we're expecting to see around that sort of GBP 6.5 million in 2026 and beyond. To your earlier question, no, it doesn't need to increase at the same proportion or growth rate as revenue. I think as Ryan rightly pointed out, we will make strategic decisions to invest where we see it opening up further envelopes of addressable market. Thank you. We'll take our next question from Christian Glennie at Stifel. Christian, unmute and go ahead, please. Yep. Thanks, guys. In terms of, I suppose just first one would be following up on the, I guess the non-precision, I guess mostly sort of non-oncology, the extra data. Just to clarify, are these products or offerings that you are able to sell today or is this something that needs to work, needs to be going on in the sort of background? Ultimately, I suppose, what is the real value proposition as I guess you move into more, I guess, sound like more sort of mass market? Yeah diagnostics. What's the real value proposition to the pharma company? One might assume that the price point might be lower for these kind of diagnostic intel than your finding every patient with rare disease. Yeah. Thanks, Christian. Great question. Firstly, yes. This is data that's hooked up to Signal. It's not a new product as such. It's just enabling the existing product offering to be applicable in new disease areas. The premise of your question is correct in that we don't expect to sell. Certainly, we wouldn't sell a full suite of services like a PMx to one of these Precision for All brands. We have modeled it that effectively what we think is going to be most applicable to them is Signal plus Physician Engage. You'll see us talk a lot about Physician Engage. It's a real growth area for us. I'll talk a little bit about it in a moment. In real terms, our expectation here is that the average revenue per brand for these non-precision medicine brands is going to be somewhere between $400,000-$600,000. That's if they take DXRX Signal and Physician Engage. We're not seeing a need to price it differently. That's primarily driven by the fact that even though the ROI per patient is lower, because effectively these drugs are less expensive typically than certainly our rare disease drugs, like some of our gene therapies or precision medicine oncology. On the flip side of that, you're targeting a 10x or more in terms of patients. Some of the drugs we're working on now are applicable in millions of patients. Whereas in precision medicine, some of the drugs we work on, their patient forecast for the year is maybe 90 patients. What you're losing in terms of revenue per patient, you're gaining back quite significantly in terms of the number of patients. These are typically much bigger brands for the pharma company in terms of overall revenue opportunity because the patient population is so significant. Pharma have already and always been buying data to support promotion and marketing of these therapeutic assets. Okay? The Precision for All assets, we're not knocking on the door saying, "Hey, you should now use data to better target your marketing or promotion." We're not chasing a single patient like we would do in precision medicine. Typically, our data is not being hooked up to a CRM for a field team to go and call on a physician to have an individual conversation with a patient. What it is doing is informing physician audience work and ultimately making the marketing that the pharma company is already doing much more effective. That's where our Physician Engage tool can come in. Coupled with our Signal data, we can have a very compelling and targeted approach to marketing that is different end use case to what we're doing in precision medicine, the premise is virtually the same. Try and get your message in front of a physician at a moment in time when they're making a treatment decision. More importantly for us in Precision for All, it's typically more competitive. This is enabling them to have a commercial edge over competition because they can get in front of the physician faster than a competitor can. The overall lift is significant because you only need to change that by a few percentage points on the norm to have a significant increase in number of patients. Thanks. Follow-up please, if I can. It's sort of a related point. Just to understand your market opportunity ultimately within, I guess the core, that precision medicine as it relates to rare disease oncology, typically. You've got roughly sort of nearly 40% share of brands, right? If it's 95 of the 250. You've got sort of roughly high single digit in dollar terms of that market. Has that been still stubbornly resistant to sort of move that spend per brand meaningfully in your favor? Just trying to get a sense for how much you still see real sense of market opportunity here within core precision versus going after some of these adjacent opportunities. I think the growth in precision medicine is still significant and ultimately the average revenue per brand is always going to be higher there, Christian. They're the brands that we have most right to win on, given our association with precision medicine, our thought leadership position and effectively the evidence points that we have. There are times when precision medicine can be frustrating in terms of the number of new approvals in a year, et cetera. You could take a year like 2024, which was a record year for new approvals, and we had a 40% growth year that year. Last year, that dropped away very significantly. We want to try to build in some additionality into the business model where we're not so dependent on precision medicine brand launches and the rate at which precision medicines are coming to market. There's a lot of activity. Sometimes that can drop off in a period of time. That is something that we want to be able to fill in. I want to make sure that the market doesn't think that we're getting too distracted away from our core focus. We believe that everything we've learned on precision medicine is absolutely applicable beyond precision medicine. It's not a model shift. It's busy doing the same thing, but doing it now in the likes of renal disease and cardiovascular, et cetera, that we spoke about. Now that we've built the scale into the data, we've built the agentic AI into the data model. It allows us to really standardize the output. The cost to us to do that is a compute cost, but it's not a people cost. We feel that there's a real opportunity to further sweat the asset. We've talked before about the fact that we only today sell about 20% of the data we have. I feel it's remiss of us not to explore how we would ultimately commercialize the rest of that data. We've had to invest a bit more last year to augment that, to really make it compelling. Now we can unlock much more of that data because we have a positioning and ultimately a product offering that can be appealing in those therapeutic areas that we have data on, but we never sold into historically. Thank you, Christian. Guys, I'm conscious that we've gone a little bit over time. Apologies for that. There's a couple of questions that we didn't get to. Happy to pick up with the analysts offline. Thank you everybody for joining us today. We look forward to seeing many of you on the road today and over the coming days. If there's anything we didn't get to, please reach out and contact us. We hope you found the event useful. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Thanks. Thanks, guys.