Brain Backups Pitch Deck Teardown: High-Resolution

Brain Backups: The Quest for Objective Parkinson's Diagnostics

Brain Backups presents a technical pitch for a high-resolution imaging platform aimed at solving the diagnostic inaccuracies associated with Parkinson's Disease (PD). The deck transitions from a broad problem statement regarding the limitations of current imaging to a specific technical solution involving nanotechnology and aptamers. While the company name 'Brain Backups' suggests a broader transhumanist or data-storage goal, the deck focuses exclusively on medical diagnostics and research tools.

Slide 1: Title Slide

The title slide introduces the company name, Brain Backups , accompanied by a logo featuring a brain with circuit-like patterns. The subtitle clearly defines the deck's focus: Objective Diagnostics for Parkinson’s Disease .

Slide 2: Our Name - Brain Backups

This slide attempts to bridge the gap between the company name and its current product. It describes a High-Resolution Brain Imaging Platform that is 'Nondestructive, noninvasive, whole brain in vivo imaging at the connectome level.' It identifies the 'First Target' as an 'Early & Accurate Parkinson’s Disease Diagnostic' and introduces the product name, AptaMark .

Slide 3: PD Diagnosis Today

The problem slide highlights the scale of Parkinson's Disease. It notes that 10 million people suffer from PD globally and it is the 14th leading cause of death in the US. Crucially, it points out that current diagnostics are 'imprecise,' citing 20% false negatives and 24% false positives . It also mentions that there are 'few imaging solutions' for the 15% of patients with complex forms of the disease.

Slide 4: The Solution - AptaMark

Slide 4 introduces AptaMark as the solution. It is described as the 'First Objective Diagnostic for PD' that enables early detection and tracks degradation directly at the source. Technical claims include 1 micron resolution and the ability to differentiate among PD subtypes. A caption states that AptaMark will be the first contrast agent with single-cell resolution, allowing neurodegeneration in the substantia nigra to be tracked objectively.

Slide 5: The Opportunity

This slide quantifies the market opportunity. It cites 34 drugs in development , an aging population, and $26B in US Healthcare Costs . A bar chart illustrates the pipeline of drugs in various phases for Parkinson's Disease, Diagnosis, and Related Conditions, suggesting a growing demand for imaging during clinical trials.

Slide 6: Competitive Analysis

A table compares AptaMark to existing methods: Doctors, Movement Software, CT, MRI, and DaTscan. AptaMark is listed with a cost of $2,800 , an aim of >90% accuracy , and 1-micron resolution . Notably, it is the only method listed as 'Yes' for objectivity and 'Preclinical' for early detection, whereas others are limited to 'Clinical' stages.

Slide 7: The Competitors

This slide focuses on DaTscan , a SPECT iodine-123 contrast agent. Brain Backups claims AptaMark offers 100X better resolution than MRI and uses the same GE imaging hardware. Logos for Nanoprobes , Covidien , and Navidea Biopharmaceuticals are displayed as other entities developing contrast agents, though the slide claims they lack AptaMark's specificity.

Slide 8: Revenue Projections

The financial forecast assumes a 5% market share by Year 4 , leading to $4M in initial diagnostic revenue . The slide includes three charts: Market Share (growing to 5%), Cost per Test (decreasing from $3,000), and Revenue (scaling to $4M). It also claims that if used for treatment management, revenue could reach $100M by testing 40,000 patients twice a year.

Slide 9: Potential Partnerships

A 'logo soup' slide features companies Brain Backups aims to engage, including ThermoFisher Scientific , Sigma-Aldrich , GE , Siemens , BD , and CardinalHealth . The text notes an 'active outreach process to engage researchers and clinicians.'

Slide 10: The Team

The team slide features photos of five individuals: Russell Hanson , Jason Fuller , Mihai Dinulescu , Robert Cunningham , and Webster Heffernan . University and corporate logos are placed near the photos, including Harvard , MIT , Mount Sinai School of Medicine , UCLA , Reed College , Ginkgo Bioworks , and Ligon Discovery . No specific titles or biographies are provided on the slide.

Slide 11: What we are asking for...

The 'Ask' slide requests $2.5M for further optimization & research deployment . It mentions a potential for positive ROI from research revenue alone and suggests a future need for $30M+ for Phase I & Phase II toxicology trials . The stated goal is an 'Exit after proven safety & efficacy.'

Slide 12: Appendix: Financial I - $2.5M Series A Breakdown

This slide provides a granular budget for the $2.5M ask. The largest allocations are $1,100,000 for Personnel and marketing (44%) and $500,000 for In vivo validation FDA 510K (20%) . Other costs include $400,000 for real estate and $250,000 for laboratory equipment.

Slide 13: Appendix: Financial II - Research Revenue

Details the unit economics of the AptaMark consumable. The initial product cost is $1,300/test , dropping to $550/test at scale . The cost to the consumer is set at $2,800/test , with a break-even point of approximately 1,200 tests.

Slide 14: Appendix: Development Timeline

A timeline spanning from 2014 to an unspecified future date. It marks a 'Start' at ~$150k , moving to a Series A of $1.5M (note: this contradicts the $2.5M ask on Slide 11/12) in 2014. It predicts profitability in 2015 and a Series B of $10M for toxicology and PD research, eventually leading to an exit after $35M total investment.

Slide 15: Appendix: Financial III - Ancillary Markets

Lists other potential research products for conditions including Alzheimer’s , Autism , Huntington’s , Schizophrenia , and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder .

Slide 16: Appendix: Science I - About Aptamers

Explains the advantages of aptamers: they are very small (1 micron), chemically synthesized (no bioreactors), easy to ship, and can cross the blood-brain barrier without triggering neurons.

Slide 17: Appendix: Science II - Technology Details

Provides a visual of a gold nanoparticle with an attached D2-specific ligand . It also shows an image of a 'Rat knee imaged at 3 microns' and mentions nanoparticle uniformity validation using dynamic light scattering.

Slide 18: Appendix: Ultrahigh-resolution NanoCT

The final slide shows ultrahigh-resolution NanoCT images of a rodent, emphasizing the level of detail (down to 500 microns in these specific images) the technology aims to provide.

What Works in This Deck

Clear Problem Identification: The deck does an excellent job of quantifying the failure of current diagnostics (20-24% error rates), which creates a compelling 'why now' for the technology. · Granular Use of Funds: Slide 12 provides a specific breakdown of how the $2.5M will be spent, which builds trust with investors regarding fiscal responsibility. · Dual-Track Revenue Model: By targeting the research market first, the company shows a path to early revenue and validation while navigating the longer, more expensive FDA clinical trial process. · Technical Specificity: The inclusion of specific resolution metrics (1 micron) and the chemistry of the contrast agent (gold nanoparticles + D2 ligands) provides a level of technical depth necessary for med-tech investors.

What Is Missing or Needs Improvement

Conflicting Figures: Slide 11 and 12 ask for $2.5M, but the timeline on Slide 14 lists a Series A of $1.5M. This discrepancy can be a red flag during due diligence. · Team Roles: While the team slide lists impressive institutions, it fails to state the actual roles (CEO, CTO, etc.) or the specific experience of the founders. Investors need to know who is running the business versus who is providing scientific advisory. · Regulatory Roadmap: While 'FDA 510K' is mentioned in the budget, a more detailed regulatory strategy would be beneficial, especially given the claim that this is a 'first' of its kind diagnostic. · Company Identity: The name 'Brain Backups' and the logo suggest a very different company (perhaps digital consciousness or data storage) than what is presented (a Parkinson's diagnostic). This branding mismatch could be confusing to investors.

Founder Takeaways

Cite Your Sources: Brain Backups cites the 'NeuroTech Business Report' and 'National Center for Health Statistics.' Providing these references adds significant weight to market claims. · Use a Competitive Matrix: The table on Slide 6 is a classic and effective way to show how a new technology outperforms incumbents on key metrics like cost, resolution, and objectivity. · Include Unit Economics: Slide 13's breakdown of cost-per-test versus price-to-consumer is vital for any hardware or consumable-based startup. It proves the founder understands the margins of their business. · Visual Proof: Including actual scans (even if they are rat knees or rodent skeletons) helps move the technology from 'theoretical' to 'functional' in the mind of the investor.