RabbitSoftware Back to project overview

Research library / reviewed reports

Evidence, with its limits attached.

Source-linked summaries behind the RabbitSoftware research prototypes. Figures below describe the cited studies, not product performance or individual outcomes. Each report links to its full analysis and research notes.

Research only, not medical advice. These reviews do not diagnose, recommend treatment, or establish clinical benefit for RabbitSoftware. Consult qualified clinicians for personal care. Personal genomes and biosignals are not collected by this website.
01 / NEUROVISUAL

EEG can retrieve a category better than it can reconstruct a picture.

Recent systems align brain signals with image embeddings, then use a pretrained generator to supply visual detail. The image is not a literal readout of the EEG.

Reviewed October 2026Benchmark: THINGS-EEG2Application: neurovisual research prototype
Perception

On a 200-way retrieval task, the established UBP reference reports 50.9% top-1 with repeated trials averaged.

New preprint

MB2L reports 80.5% top-1 under averaged-trial evaluation; it is an unreplicated 2026 preprint without released code.

Single trial

Performance falls substantially without averaging. A separate report gives about 14.0% top-1, rising to 19.8% with a denoiser.

Imagery and memory

Evidence supports small closed-set categories and recall gist, not reconstruction of a specific imagined or remembered scene.

Interpretation: the chart compares reported top-1 retrieval figures, not image fidelity. Protocol, repetitions, and study maturity differ; the preprint result is not independently reproduced.
Reported top-1 retrieval / 200-way task
NICE-GA / averaged15.6
ATM-S / averaged28.6
UBP / averaged50.9
MB2L / averaged80.5

Percent correct; repeated trials are averaged in these benchmark headline figures. Orange marks the unreplicated preprint. Chance is 0.5% for 200 classes.

02 / GENOMICS

Genomic data informs care through physical treatments and clinical decisions.

The review separates cell-based gene editing, blood-based residual-disease testing, tumour-matched drugs, and digital modelling. None supports a digital twin or radio signal directly changing a body.

Reviewed October 2026Sources include trials, reviews, and dataset recordsApplication: genomics research tooling
01MeasureSequence tumour material or detect tumour-derived DNA in blood.
02InterpretUse validated assays and evidence to identify risk, targets, or trial eligibility.
03Act physicallyA clinician selects a drug, vaccine, cell therapy, radiation, or monitoring plan. The digital layer itself does not treat cancer.
Edited immune cells

Early allogeneic CAR-T studies report responses in small cohorts, mainly for blood cancers. Results are not head-to-head comparisons, and CRISPR cancer treatments are not established as approved therapies in this review.

Earlier detection

In the cited colorectal cohort, circulating tumour DNA became positive a median 142 days before imaging relapse. Detection is prognostic; an effective intervention after a positive test remains a separate question.

Personalized vaccine

A phase 3 melanoma trial reported meeting recurrence-free and distant-metastasis-free endpoints in August 2026. Detailed effect estimates and regulatory approval are not implied by that announcement.

Data access

Processed public datasets can support reproducible research. Controlled-access raw genomes require authorization; personal genomes belong in a private encrypted vault, never a public chain.

Not a treatment tool. Candidate CRISPR guides are untested laboratory hypotheses. Variant comparisons do not diagnose disease. Decisions about testing or treatment belong with an oncology care team.