Greetings, welcome to the PureTech Health 2025 annual results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's prepared remarks, there will be a question and answer session, and instructions will follow at that time. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Allison Mead Talbot, Senior Vice President of Communications. Thank you, Allison. You may begin. Thank you everyone for joining us for PureTech's 2026 annual results webcast. Our annual report will be made available later today, portions of which are also filed with our Form 20-F. This information is available on the investors page of our website at puretechhealth.com. I would like to remind you that during today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that could cause our actual results to differ materially. We ask that you refer to our annual report and our SEC filings for a complete discussion of these items. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements or information except as required by law. I also want to remind you that we will be referring to certain non-IFRS measures in this presentation. The presentation of this non-IFRS financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with IFRS. A reconciliation of the IFRS to non-IFRS measures that we will be referring to today can be found in this presentation and is also available on our investor relations website at investors.puretechhealth.com and in our SEC filings. I'm joined today by members of our senior management team, Robert Lyne, Chief Executive Officer, Eric Elenko, Co-founder and President, Chip Sherwood, General Counsel, Michael Inbar, Chief Accounting Officer, as well as Sven Dethlefs, CEO of our founded entity, Celea Therapeutics. Rob and Eric will discuss our strategic vision and path to value creation, including updates across our portfolio and our differentiated innovation engine. They will also provide a deep dive into the Gallop program, review our financial highlights, and outline our anticipated catalyst for the remainder of the year. With that, I will now turn the call over to Rob, our Chief Executive Officer. Thank you, Allison. Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. We're at a pivotal moment in the company's trajectory. Having announced our near-term operational focus in December, I'm pleased today to walk you through our refined strategy and portfolio progress. This next phase of our evolution is designed to translate our proven innovation model into greater shareholder value. As a reminder, PureTech is a Boston-based LSE-listed biotherapeutics company operating a hub-and-spoke model with a proven clinical and financial track record. Programs originate within the PureTech hub based on a thesis of targeting molecules with validated pharmacology and are then advanced through early clinical and technical de-risking. At defined value inflection points, we scale them through founded entities backed primarily by external capital. This model is both powerful and differentiated for two reasons. First, it improves how we innovate. We focus on opportunities where the underlying mechanism has already shown evidence in humans, allowing us to reduce technical risk while improving probability of success. Secondly, it improves how we allocate capital. By leveraging external capital at the founded entity level, we maintain portfolio breadth, preserve balance sheet strength, and retain long-term upside through equity, milestones, and royalties. Because we develop these programs internally, we typically begin with full ownership of assets and proprietary IP to which we can attach non-dilutive milestones and royalties. This means that in contrast to traditional venture capital investors, we do not need to continue to write large checks for every subsequent funding round in order to preserve a meaningful equity stake. Instead, our model allows for prudent equity dilution, allowing us to retain large equity positions in multiple founded entities whilst they diversify their own shareholder registers. Having a balanced shareholder register makes it easier to raise external equity and is vital if our founded entities are to IPO. Throughout this process, our royalties and milestones are protected, providing optionality for de-risking ahead of inflection points and preservation of long-term value for PureTech. This result is a model designed to create superior overall financial returns while limiting concentration risk. Through this model, we have developed meaningful clinical and regulatory success. We have generated three FDA-approved therapeutics from our innovation engine to date, including the schizophrenia treatment Cobenfy. We've also achieved substantial cash flow, generating over GBP 1 billion growth from monetization of our economics and our founded entities, all while continuing to build a diversified pipeline of future opportunities. Looking ahead, our focus is clear. Sharpen execution, strengthen capital discipline, and ensure that PureTech's distinctive model continues to translate breakthrough science into meaningful value for both patients and shareholders. To deliver on our strategy, we focus on four pillars of operational refinement. A streamlined structure. We intend to operate a significantly leaner and more efficient hub following the completion of the Celea financing. As part of this initiative, we announced this morning our intention to voluntarily delist from Nasdaq, recognizing that the vast majority of our trading remains on the LSE some five years after our initial Nasdaq list. This step simplifies our structure and reduces cost and administrative burden for the business whilst retaining our primary London listing, providing access to both U.K. and global investment community. Launching founded entities early. In recent years, we've advanced certain programs further internally before transitioning them to founded entities. While this allowed us to retain larger equity stakes, it required greater capital and operational infrastructure at the PureTech hub level. Going forward, we intend to establish and capitalize these entities early in the development life cycle once programs have reached key clinical value inflection points. Since return on capital is typically higher early in the cycle, this approach will allow for the creation of a greater number of founded entities. We believe therefore that overall financial performance from the portfolio will improve. A refined innovation focus. Our innovation engine remains the foundation of future growth. Led by my colleague, Eric Elenko, our expanding innovation team continues to progress their work with this goal in mind. Over the next three years, we plan to generate up to two development candidates, each of which has the potential to become a new founded entity supported by external capital, allowing us to drive the next wave of growth for PureTech. Commitment to capital returns. Finally, this refreshed strategy strengthens our capital discipline and enhances our flexibility. To ensure shareholders benefit directly from our success, we intend to return a greater proportion of future cash generation to shareholders, particularly in the event of an outsized return, whilst maintaining appropriate operational runway for the business. PureTech's value today is underpinned by multiple distinct components. These include our economics in Cobenfy, Seaport Therapeutics, Celea Therapeutics, and Gallop Oncology, as well as an innovation engine capable of generating future opportunities. We believe this diversified structure is a meaningful strategic advantage and one that is not fully reflected in our current valuation. Across our portfolio, I'm pleased with the progress that was made during 2025 and so far this year. Celea is our most clinically advanced founded entity, developing deupirfenidone for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Deupirfenidone demonstrated a robust efficacy with the potential to replace standard of care treatments in its phase II-B trial and is now phase III ready. I'm pleased to share today that Celea's fundraising is substantially complete, subject to continued negotiations. Celea has secured multiple non-binding commitments from external investors in addition to participation from PureTech. Whilst mindful of macro factors, Celea is targeting to close the financing by early in the third quarter of 2026. The financing is intended to support the phase III SURPASS-IPF trial, which Celea expects to commence in close proximity to closing the financing. This would represent an important value inflection point both for Celea and for PureTech. Next is Gallop, which is another founded entity which we currently own 100% of. Last week, we announced positive top-line data from the phase I-B trial of LYT-200 in relapse refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, and relapse refractory acute myeloid leukemia. We are pleased with the data, which guides our strategic focus to advance LYT-200 for relapse refractory high-risk MDS. Gallop is now preparing to engage with the FDA regarding a potentially registration-enabling trial design in this indication. As Eric will discuss shortly, we believe Gallop represents another strong example of our model in action. Differentiated science, disciplined development, the ability to attract external capital at the appropriate stage. Seaport is our most operationally advanced founded entity. The company has progressed two clinical trials for neuropsychiatric conditions in 2025 and 2026. As many of you will have seen, Seaport filed a registration statement for a potential initial public offering on Nasdaq. This progress further validates our ability to create and scale attractive standalone biotechnology companies from within the PureTech hub-and-spoke model. Beyond our core founded entities, we also retain rights to Cobenfy, a commercial-stage product that originated in our innovation engine. PureTech is the co-inventor of Cobenfy, which we house in a founded entity called Karuna Therapeutics. Karuna was acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb for $14 billion, though we continue to hold significant non-dilutive economic rights. Based on current analyst consensus of BMS sales expectations, the projected value to PureTech is approximately $160 million from these rights through 2033. Due to the nature of our Cobenfy economics, we are overly exposed to the early performance of Cobenfy sales. Any reduction in analyst forecasts of early sales, even if modest, can therefore have a material impact on projected inflows. Nonetheless, we expect substantial financial inflows to PureTech from Cobenfy and are confident that it will improve the lives of large numbers of patients around the world. Going forward, we intend to provide regular updates to PureTech's economic forecast of Cobenfy sales based upon evolving market consensus at important points during our earnings webcasts in the future. We also note that any monetization events from any of our founded entities, including the Cobenfy economics, represent pure upside. We do not factor any potential inflows from these entities into our runway assumptions. Indeed, whilst we have the option to collect royalties and milestones as they fall due, we also have the flexibility to monetize such rights ahead of time. This was the case with Cobenfy, where we have already secured approximately $125 million in payments to date from a previous royalty sale. This provided PureTech Health with capital that is unaffected by future commercial sales fluctuations and demonstrates our disciplined approach to structuring founded entities and managing upside thoughtfully. Beyond these founded entities, we also maintain the interest in with our core, our legacy holdings. These are historical founded entities that continue to have the potential to be a source of capital to us, though they are not a current focus of our capital allocation, nor do we currently expect them to have a material impact on the overall value of PureTech Health moving forward. As our founded entities continue to mature and secure external funding, we intend to provide greater transparency around valuation benchmarks where appropriate. This is consistent with our capital-efficient model of maintaining a lean hub while creating value through externally financed founded entities. It also builds on Seaport Therapeutics post-merger disclosure, which we introduced last year. Our objective is straightforward. To help investors better model the embedded upside across our portfolio, bridge what we believe is a disconnect between intrinsic value and current market value, and ultimately support stronger shareholder returns. As part of this transparency, we are today providing an update on our Q1 cash position. With PureTech level cash and cash equivalents as of March 31st, 2026, standing at approximately $248 million on an unaudited basis. I would now like to welcome Eric Elenko, our Co-founder and President. It is no overstatement to say that Eric has been instrumental to our many successes to date. He will walk us through the latest progress at Gallop Oncology, as well as share what he and the innovation team are currently working towards. Thank you, Rob, and thanks for the kind introduction. As Rob mentioned, PureTech is focused on how we translate scientific opportunity into programs that can ultimately deliver meaningful impact for patients and value for shareholders. At PureTech, that involves both identifying new opportunities and making disciplined decisions about how to advance them, where to focus, how to allocate capital, and how to position programs to reach their next value inflection point. Gallop Oncology being a recent example of our disciplined approach. Last week, we announced positive top-line results from the phase I-B trial of LYT-200, which is being developed through our 100% owned subsidiary, Gallop Oncology. I will briefly review the data, but more importantly, what it means for the program and how we are thinking about the path forward. LYT-200 is a monoclonal antibody that targets galectin-9. It is thought to work through two complementary mechanisms in the context of the hematological malignancies we studied in our trial. First, it relieves immunosuppression to enable the immune system to act on the cancer cells. Second, it directly kills cancer cells by inducing cell death through DNA damage and apoptosis. The trial was in relapsed refractory high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, and relapsed refractory acute myeloid leukemia, or AML, which are closely related blood cancers where patients unfortunately typically have poor outcomes. The trial evaluated LYT-200 in a dose-escalating manner, both as a monotherapy and in combination with a hypomethylating agent, or HMA, in patients with MDS and in combination with an HMA and venetoclax in patients with AML. All the patients were heavily pre-treated. For example, 100% of the MDS patients had previously received an HMA. The objectives of the study were straightforward: establish safety, identify a dose for further development, and generate the data needed to determine whether Gallop should prioritize MDS or AML for subsequent studies. We achieved all three objectives. LYT-200 had an excellent safety profile with no dose-limiting toxicities or myeloid suppression, which has historically been a challenge in developing treatments for MDS. We also observed a dose-dependent efficacy response and identified 12 mg/kg of LYT-200 as the dose for the next study. The data were strong across both patient populations studied, and importantly, the study provided the clarity needed to define our next step. I want to provide some additional context on how we arrived at the decision to prioritize relapsed refractory high-risk MDS as our next indication. This decision reflects both the clinical data generated in the study and strategic considerations. Going into the study, we had preclinical data supporting the potential for LYT-200 in AML, whereas MDS is a more challenging setting to study preclinically. AML and MDS are both myeloid malignancies and are closely related. MDS can progress to AML, and they share underlying disease biology. Because of this, it's common in early-stage oncology development to evaluate therapies across both populations within a single phase I study to efficiently assess safety and initial activity. As a result, the trial was designed to generate the clinical data needed to inform indication prioritization. The data were strong in both MDS and AML. Advancing a potentially registrational enabling study requires significant capital, and our clinical strategy has to intersect with our financing strategy. We seek to balance dilution for PureTech with ensuring that a founded entity is sufficiently capitalized to reach a meaningful value inflection point. As a result, it is important to prioritize where we believe we can create the greatest near to medium-term value. If capital were unconstrained, we would consider advancing both MDS and AML in parallel. We decided to prioritize MDS given that it emerged as a particularly compelling opportunity. Historically, nothing has meaningfully moved the needle for patients with relapsed refractory high-risk MDS following HMA failure. In fact, literature suggests that 0%-5% of these patients respond if they're treated again with an HMA. Against this backdrop, the activity we observed in this study was particularly encouraging. The broader competitive landscape, both commercially and in terms of clinical trial patient recruitment, are also compelling for MDS. There's only one approved drug which is applicable to only 3%-5% of the population. An efficacious drug with an excellent safety profile of the type observed in phase I would have blockbuster potential, and the competitive pipeline is threadbare, and therefore, there is less competition to recruit patients compared to AML. At the same time, we continue to believe LYT-200 has broader potential across other hematological malignancies, including AML, which we intend to explore over time. Consistent with this approach, Gallop intends to pursue third-party capital to support a potentially registration-enabling trial in MDS, with the majority expected to come from external investors. Our objective is to ensure the program is sufficiently funded to reach a meaningful value inflection point while maintaining discipline around dilution for PureTech Health. The next step is interacting with the FDA later this year. In parallel, we are actively generating the next set of programs that will form the basis for future founded entities. Historically, many of our programs and PureTech's greatest successes have come from identifying therapies with validated pharmacology and addressing the specific issues that limited their potential. Our founded entities, Karuna Therapeutics, Seaport Therapeutics, and Celea Therapeutics, all exemplified the approach. Going forward, innovation will focus on validated pharmacology. We have refined and formalized this approach over the last two decades into what we call the LIFE model, launching innovation from existing pharmacology. As shown on this slide, the LIFE model is a systematic framework for identifying areas of high unmet need, selecting drugs with demonstrated human efficacy, understanding what has constrained their full potential, and designing targeted solutions to fully unlock their value. We then conduct focused core experiments with rigorous predefined success criteria established in advance of data readout to ensure this process remains highly capital efficient. In addition, any solution must support strong intellectual property and be attractive to both physicians and payers. Importantly, this approach allows us to innovate with greater speed, lower technical risk, and significantly greater capital efficiency than traditional de novo drug discovery. Using this approach, we expect to focus primarily on small molecules while remaining open to traditional biologics such as antibodies where the opportunity is compelling. While we consider opportunities across a range of therapeutic areas, we anticipate an emphasis on areas of traditional strength such as CNS. Looking ahead, we aim to progress up to three concept stage pharma programs with modest capital deployment. We define a concept stage program as a therapeutic opportunity that has passed initial internal diligence and is continuing to be de-risked. We are currently progressing several promising programs through our concept stage process with the goal of nominating up to two development candidates over the next three years that could serve as the basis for future funded entities. Innovation has historically been the foundation of value creation at PureTech. We're excited about leveraging the best approaches we have learned and applying them to develop new therapies that have the potential to help patients and create value for our shareholders. Now I'll turn it back to Rob. Thanks, Eric. We are indeed very excited about the potential with Gallop and the work of the innovation team in progressing the next wave of founded entities. I would like to go over our financial highlights. At the PureTech level, we ended 2025 with cash equivalents, and short-term instruments of $277.1 million compared to $366.8 million at the end of 2024. On a consolidated basis, our cash equivalents, and short-term investments were $277.3 million at the end of 2025 compared to $367.3 million at the end of 2024. At the PureTech level, as of March 31st, 2026, we held unaudited cash and cash equivalents of $248.1 million. On a consolidated basis, our cash and cash equivalents were $248.2 million. Based on our existing financial assets as of December 31st, 2025, we expect to have operational runway at least through the end of 2028, which is inclusive of our expected participation in certain founded entity fundraisings. Our revenues are mostly driven by milestone-based payments and royalties from license agreements and are expected to continue to fluctuate from year to year. On a consolidated basis, our revenues in 2025 were $4.7 million compared to $4.8 million in 2024. We reported a lower operating loss of $98.5 million in 2025 compared with $136.1 million in 2024. This decrease is largely due to lower G&A expense as a result of the deconsolidation of Seaport in 2024, which reduce workforce-related costs, including payroll and non-cash stock-based compensation expenses and new stock awards granted to founders, directors, employees, and executives of Seaport in 2024 prior to its deconsolidation. The decrease is also attributed to lower R&D expenses in 2025, mainly as a result also of the deconsolidation of Seaport in 2024. On a consolidated basis, we reported a net loss of $110.1 million for 2025 compared to net income of $27.8 million for 2024. The change primarily due to the absence of a $151.8 million one-time gain from the Seaport deconsolidation, which was recognized in 2024. By excluding that item, we saw improvement in operating costs in both G&A and R&D, as mentioned above. Looking ahead, we expect to streamline expenses and operate with a lean model following the completion of the Celea fundraise, in line with our refined strategy. This measured approach allows us to protect our balance sheet and preserve capital flexibility to fund opportunities with asymmetric value potential. In summary, I am pleased with the operational and clinical progress we are making at PureTech and across our founded entities. At the same time, we remain focused on execution. In 2026, our priorities include advancing Celea and Gallop both operationally and financially, deriving value from our founded entities opportunistically, and progressing our innovation engine toward new candidate nominations. We believe our refined strategy positions us well to do so with greater focus, discipline, and capital efficiency. In closing, I'd like to thank the various stakeholders who make PureTech what it is today, including our team, shareholders, and the broader clinical community who are vital to the important work we do. It's a privilege to lead PureTech at this important moment. We have a differentiated model, a strong foundation, and meaningful opportunities ahead, and we remain firmly focused on translating that potential into sustained progress and value creation. I'll now turn to the operator to take questions. Thank you. To ask a question, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad now. If you changed your mind, please press star followed by two. When preparing to ask a question, please ensure your device is unmuted locally. Our first question comes from Miles Dixon from Peel Hunt. Your line is now open, Miles. Please go ahead. Great. Thank you, Rob. Eric, thanks very much. Forgive me if some of the questions go over topics that you've already talked about. My line dropped a few times. Can I just double-check on cash, firstly? I mean, it's a change in the guidance from into 2028 to the end of 2028. Can I just double-check on two important points? Firstly, that this is at least until the end of 2028, subject to further realization, and that it's inclusive any participation. I know as you said in entity fundraising, but also specifically for Celea, where the trial costs might be slightly higher. That's the first one. Thank you. Hi, Miles. Thanks for joining. Yes. No, absolutely. As you say, it's at least through 2028, and that reflects the conservative approach that we take to cash runway. As you say, we don't factor in any realizations into that cash guidance, and we are assuming commitments into Celea and also support for Gallop as well in that runway guidance. Brilliant. Thank you. Then, moving on to LYT-100 and Celea. I mean, obviously, the IPF landscape continues to evolve and heat up, but it's suggesting more and more people are looking at it. Clearly your data today is great. How are talks progressing with the funding partners? You've said you've used the word substantially complete. Can you give us anything on the profile of this potential partner in the endeavor? Given the earlier comments that we've just made about cash, I'm assuming that the majority of the kind of liability is going to be settled by the partner in this. If you can just give me a bit more color, that would be really helpful. Yeah, absolutely. Look, as we're updating today, you know, we've made very substantial progress on this fundraise. Obviously, these things are never done until they're done, and there are various things that need to fall into place before we'll be able to announce any completion of the fundraising. However, we've made very substantial progress now, and we have a clear line of sight to getting this done. As you've indicated, Miles, you know, we are looking to raise a very significant amount of capital in this raise, but the majority of that capital is very much coming from external partners. That is reflecting our model of leveraging external capital whilst providing the commitments that we need in order to maintain meaningful equity stakes in these founded entities. Great. Thank you. Now just moving on to the other exciting bit of clinical data news, the Gallop Oncology. Eric, I think I caught you talking about the selection of MDS versus AML. I very much understand that it was about capital. Could I also ask whether there's any read across from trials, you know, whether it be Tibsovo and this label extension when you were thinking about, you know, potential patient cohort size? Should we make any read across from that, I think it was a 170 patient expansion from AML into MDS for Tibsovo? Yeah. Miles, thanks for the question. We're prioritizing MDS because of the very compelling clinical data. Really, you know, as you indicated, there's really only the one drug approved in the relapse refractory population, which is Tibsovo. Tibsovo, because it's appropriate for patients with a specific mutation, you know, that's really why it's limited to that 3%-5% of the relapse refractory population. That really creates a tremendous need. If you look more generally with regards to the pipeline and what exists and what's being developed, it's really threadbare. What that means is that a drug that if it is approved in the relapsed refractory high-risk MDS population has blockbuster potential. It also means from a clinical trial perspective that there's less competition for patients when it comes to recruiting. The decision with regard to prioritization was driven by the very compelling clinical data we had, but also, the other factors, that I was describing. Great. Thank you, Eric. Lastly for me before I get back in the queue on Seaport Therapeutics, obviously some more progress currently being made. Rob, if I can just ask, I mean, obviously the F -1 registration document suggested you have I think it was 42% or 43% versus the original 35% that was disclosed. What will you guys be thinking about taking a board seat post any IPO? I mean, you again, you talked about the 3%-5% tiered royalties that you would have. Is that on all Glyph products on that potential platform or just those in the existing pipeline? Any color that you can give me on those topics would be great too. Absolutely, Miles. Obviously, we're limited in what we can say at the moment about Seaport given that they're on file for IPO in the U.S. It is our general practice with founded entities that we don't take board seats once they IPO. That is a general approach that we've taken in the past and that we would expect to be taking going forward. It's also the case that we do have royalties beyond just the Glyph application in terms of the economics that we have there from. Again, that stems from the, obviously, the developmental work that was done at PureTech around that technology. Great. Thank you both. Thank you. We will now move on to our written questions. Our first question is, are you keen to hold a significant stake in Seaport beyond future funding rounds? It's a great question because it really goes to the heart of our hub and spoke model. You know, we obviously because as indicated just with the Glyph platform, because we undertake developmental work on these programs internally at PureTech at the hub level, we typically start out with 100% ownership of our founded entities. What that means is as we leverage external capital, we often retain very large equity stakes in our founded entities, even once they've raised large amounts of capital. Very often you'll see that even through private rounds and even potential public fundraisings, we typically may end up even at that stage still being the largest individual shareholder. You know, why do we end up in that situation? Well, look, for us it has two benefits. One is to PureTech. It means we don't have to keep writing, ever-increasing checks to hold our corner and to maintain a significant equity percentage. Instead, at the PureTech level, we can allocate that cash to other programs, typically earlier stage innovation, where we will often see the potential for a higher return on capital than we would in investing in later stage rounds of our founded entity fundraisings. As well as capital allocation within PureTech and aiming to increase our overall financial returns, it also allows the founded entities to diversify their shareholder registers. This is vital if they're gonna raise external capital, particularly if they do ever want to IPO. That would not be practical in a situation where PureTech was the 100% shareholder of a business. We see that dilution as beneficial both to PureTech and to the founded entities, but also it's allied with the non-dilutive economics which we retain in founded entities, which obviously are unaffected by the equity dilution that we may see. Thank you. Our next question comes from Christian Glennie from Stifel. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. I just follow up on the around the new asset formation, the concept stage. Just a bit more around that. I mean, is this a ballpark figure in terms of how much it costs to do the sort of concept stage assets? Then just to clarify, were you talking about new candidates on the candidate side, two assets, was that over a three-year period or was that two assets per year? Then just finally, therapeutic areas of focus here. I mean, you've got a pretty broad spread in terms of your existing portfolio. Is that likely to continue fairly agnostic on therapeutic area or do you see some areas where you think are particularly of interest for those sort of new concept assets? Thank you. Thanks for the questions, Christian. Look, just taking them in order, what we find so exciting about innovation is we can actually make really significant progress with pretty modest amounts of capital. When we're doing very early de-risking or proof of concept studies, we can make really great progress with six-figure, modest seven-figure amounts of investment. Maybe to one of the earlier questions that we just spoke to, you can give an idea then of the kind of return of capital that we can make on that kind of modest early capital deployment compared to later stage investments in founded entities. That's one of the reasons that we find innovation so exciting, both in terms of what we can do for patients, but also in terms of the financial returns that we can generate there. Just to your specific question, we're looking at two developmental candidates over a three-year period in terms of the cadence going forward. In terms of sort of therapeutic areas and how we think about that, I might turn that over to Eric to answer that piece of the question. Yeah. A lot of our focus is really in areas where we've had historic success and strength. For example, central nervous system, CNS, is an area of great focus. There are other areas of interest, for instance, I&I. We do maintain a therapeutic area agnostic policy, so that if we do see an opportunity that we wanna pursue, that's available to us. Given that our approach is proactive, we do tend to concentrate in certain areas, and again, particularly CNS being really one of the biggest areas of focus. That's great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is: Thank you for the transparency on the runway to 2028. It's good that you don't pencil in any Cobenfy realizations in this guidance. Can you clarify how this runway might be impacted from a more rationalized group post-Celea finance completion? Also, what monies have you set aside for funding some of these financing rounds as well? Certainly. As we indicated, we take a conservative approach in terms of our runway guidance. Quite right to identify that we don't have any Cobenfy realizations. We also don't assume any other realizations from any founded entities that may come through. We are looking, and in our assumptions, we are planning for some reduction in our cost base following the spin-out of Celea. Once we get that spin-out completed, we'll be looking to revisit that cost reduction and try and reduce that as far as possible to see if we can stretch that runway even further. As well as not including any income from any monetizations, we have included participation in both the Celea fundraise, which as we've indicated, is now coming up to a place where we think we've got line of sight to completion in due course. We also are reserving more modest amounts for supporting Gallop Oncology as well, which we've guided that we'll be looking to commence fundraising towards the end of this year, looking to try and complete a fundraise by the first quarter of next year. The exact amounts there are still to be determined because it's subject to commercial negotiations on the two fundraising structures. In terms of guidance, we certainly expect a significant commitment into the Celea round given the scale of fundraising necessary there for phase III, and we would be considering a more modest commitment into Gallop. As and when we're in a position to complete those financings, we'll be able to provide full detail on the capital commitment that PureTech will be making. Thank you. Our next question is, "Should we be ascribing any value or realization from Follica, Vedanta, Sonde, Alivio, or Integra? Look, we're very proud of the innovation and work that went into these founded entities. In terms of helping shareholders understand, you know, where we see value in the business, at the half year last year, we introduced the concept of legacy holdings, which is where we're now bucketing these founded entities. We are continuing to support those that have operations still where we think that we may still be able to extract some value. In terms of modeling guidance, we are guiding that we do not expect material financial returns from any of these assets. To the extent that changes, we'd obviously be delighted to update shareholders, but for modeling purposes, we don't ascribe a material prospect of material inflows from these founded entities. Thank you. Our next question is, "Can you outline your thinking on capital allocation, specifically in terms of where potential capital return fits in terms of your updated priorities? Certainly. One of our focuses, since we've been refining our strategy over the last nine months or so, has been to put an emphasis on capital returns. We recognize that ensuring that our shareholders participate in the scientific, but also most importantly, the financial success of PureTech is absolutely critical. This is one of the reasons why we've deliberately taken a cautious approach to our cash runway, ensuring that we are able to fund an ongoing business without relying on realizations coming into the business. Because of that, we will be looking to ensure that when we do have significant financial inflows into the company, which we've had in the past and we see potential for again in the future, that we would be looking to return meaningful proportions of those inflows back to shareholders directly. The exact form of that return would need to be decided at the time, but it is our intention that those significant wins back into PureTech will result in financial flows back to shareholders directly. Thank you. That's all we have time for today. I'd like to thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect your line.