Skip to content

Science

Trustworthy because it shows its work.

This category has a credibility problem because its claims can’t be checked. Ours are built to be.

Reproducible

Built on open-source bioinformatics tools and public, peer-reviewed databases — not a proprietary black box.

Cited

Every claim traces to a named source, and to a specific record in your own Healthlake.

Calibrated

The biggest failure in consumer health-tech is false precision. We use directional, honest language and show the uncertainty.

Cross-validated

High-impact findings must hold up across independent checks before they reach you. We’d rather drop an uncertain finding than alarm you with a false one.

Indaga’s engine is open source — you can read it, run it, and check our work. View it on GitHub →

Calibrated, not alarming

The same finding, told two ways.

A typical consumer report

Your risk is HIGH

“3× more sensitive”

No source · no uncertainty · can’t be checked

The same finding, in Indaga

Modestly above average — about 1.3×, driven by 18 common variants with small individual effects.

Two positions weren’t callable from your chip — noted, not glossed over.

ClinVar · gnomAD · PGS Catalog calibrated · checkable

Where you stand

A percentile is a band, not a false-precise number.

Your VO₂max — the most modifiable predictor of how long you stay independent — on directly-measured peer norms (the ACSM FRIEND registry). You’re a position inside a band, not a single decimal; and your trajectory toward the point where everyday tasks get hard is drawn, not asserted— labelled a projection, not a prediction.

VO2max-versus-age chart: shaded bands are FRIEND percentile norms for the person's age and sex; a point marks where they stand (about the 57th percentile, just above the median); two lines project the natural and trained decline toward the independence floor of 18, crossing around ages 85 and 91.
Illustrative example. In the app this is your own reading, updated from your watch.

The calibration mechanism

A second AI whose only job is to catch the first one overstating.

High-quality answers don’t come from one confident pass. Indaga runs a multi-agent loop, and the adversarial reviewer is the surprising, load-bearing part.

  1. 01

    Drafter

    Writes the first interpretation from your data and the evidence.

  2. 02

    Adversarial reviewer

    A second pass whose only job is to attack the first — hunting overstated risk and false precision.

  3. 03

    Reconciler

    Integrates what survives into a calibrated answer, with its citations and its caveats intact.

Built in the open

It’s real software. Read it, run it.

Indaga’s engine is open source and runs entirely on your machine — bring the DNA file you already have, and ask your own agent. Every capability on this site maps to that engine. If it’s listed, it runs.

View the engine on GitHub →
your machine
$ indaga impute --subject me --chip 23andme_raw.txt
$ indaga annotate --subject me
# then ask your own agent — locally:
any ACMG-actionable secondary findings?
am I a slow caffeine metabolizer?
cited, calibrated, honest about what your chip could see.

We show the uncertainty because hiding it would be the dishonest thing.

Absence is never “normal.” A test you never took returns “not measured,” not “you’re fine.” That single rule is the reason the product exists.

Indaga is in active development.

We’re building it in the open — privacy-first, cited, and honest about what it can and can’t see.