Methodology

How outcomes and reports are structured.

Arcametric turns the arc of care into a record you can read at a glance and hand to a referrer, an auditor, or a payer. Here is how.

Measurement-based tracking

The trajectory of a score over time.

The clinic chooses the standardized measures it wants to follow. Arcametric records them at the points that matter across the arc, from the baseline in preparation through follow-up, so you can see the trajectory of a score over time.

We show the trajectory. We do not claim it proves an outcome. That is for the research to establish, not the software.

What a record means

A record means what it says.

Arcametric keeps experiential observations, acute effects, and adverse events on separate records. A bout of nausea is recorded as nausea, and it becomes an adverse event only when it meets the criteria for one, through the separate safety workflow.

Nothing gets inflated into the safety record, and nothing meaningful gets filed as harm by default.

The arc as the unit

The whole arc, not a pile of visit notes.

Instead of a pile of separate visit notes, the record is organized around the whole arc: preparation, dosing, integration, and follow-up. Reports are built from that structure, which is why one click can produce a clean, de-identified summary.

  • Create patient record
  • Capture referral / indication
  • Informed consent
  • Safety screening
  • Baseline assessments
  • Set & setting
  • Dosing protocol
  • Baseline vitals
  • Launch session
  • T+00 begins
  • Dose events
  • Vitals
  • Clinical observations
  • Adverse events, if needed
  • Discharge readiness
  • Session summary
  • Patient check-ins
  • Follow-up assessments
  • Integration tasks
  • Progress summary
  • Referral summary
  • Audit & compliance
  • Insurance summary
Preparation
Dosing
Integration
White paper

Clinical records without centralized patient identity.

The data architecture thesis: how treatment-stage documentation, standardized outcome measures, and safety event records can be built for comparison and reporting while the link to patient identity never leaves the clinic.

The coding reference behind this methodology is published openly as the Coding Landscape. Read more on the Evidence and Standards page.

The research landscape

The published record, surfaced and compared.

Structure is what lets results be compared. The published research map shows each study with its citation. This is the published literature, not Arcametric outcomes, and not a benchmark network.

Open Evidence

Shared learning model

Reciprocal, and suppressed.

How aggregate comparison works as the network grows: practitioners who contribute their protocols and outcomes share equally in what the field learns. Small-cell suppression keeps any single clinic or patient from being identifiable in aggregate views.

See the sample reports built from this structure. Or read Structural Privacy and the Coding Landscape.