Progress in women’s health is often framed as a story of “missing data” or “lack of research.” But what if the real issue isn’t absence at all? What if it’s how our systems are designed to overlook, fragment, and underuse what already exists.
Femtech Canada opened its first roundtable of 2026 with a panel discussion grounded in the work of The Persons Project, a global initiative focused on advancing women’s health through better evidence, better systems, and better translation from research into real-world impact. The roundtable explored how persistent challenges across data, research, and investment continue to slow progress, and what it will take to move women’s health innovation forward in a more coordinated, scalable way.
The discussion brought together a group of experts spanning life sciences, real-world evidence, data infrastructure, and consumer health. Led by Danika Kelly of My Normative, the session featured insights from Tracie Meyer, National Director of Strategic Partnerships at Otsuka Precision Health, who offered a life sciences and healthcare perspective; Lysel Brignoli, Associate Principal of Real-World Evidence at Oracle Life Sciences, who shared expertise in data systems and evidence generation; and Amanda Shea, Chief Scientific Officer at Clue, representing consumer health technology and large-scale longitudinal data. Other collaborators of the project not present at the roundtable include 4M (UK), Trially (U.S.), and GSD (U.S.), further underscoring that this is a global effort that we can all contribute to advance.
From “gaps” to systemic failure
A central theme of the discussion was a reframing of the problem itself. The shortfalls in women’s health are often described as gaps in data or research, but that language obscures a deeper reality. What we are facing is a systematic and systemic failure.
Data is routinely collected without being analyzed in ways that reflect sex-based differences. Claims of “insufficient evidence” are used to justify inaction. Business and political incentives reinforce existing research norms, and investment decisions follow suit which limits funding for women’s health innovation. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: systemic barriers lead to limited evidence, which then justifies continued underinvestment.
This reframing also reshaped how the panel discussed the “knowledge gap.” Rather than a simple lack of research on female bodies, the gap lies in the lack of the research turning into practical tools or data that can move across disciplines, sectors, and stages of the innovation pipeline. Insights exist, but without evidence that investors, regulators, clinicians, and policymakers can reuse, those insights fail to drive systemic change.
When data exists but insight stalls
From a real-world evidence perspective, Lysel (Oracle Life Sciences) highlighted how this failure plays out in practice. Sex at birth is almost always captured across clinical trials, observational studies, and real-world datasets. Yet sex-specific analysis is rarely a default objective. When it is not mandated, it becomes optional and when it is optional, it is often skipped, underexplored, or unpublished.
This is not a failure of intent, but of design. Incentives, workflows, and priorities do not make sex-based analysis a reflex. As a result, vast datasets contain unrealized insights into sex differences that could be informing care, development, and policy today.
Tracie (Otsuka Precision Health) reinforced how this fragmentation manifests in industry. Business-first strategies often silo data, strategy, and execution, weakening the foundational evidence needed to guide product development and investment decisions that ultimately impact the women we are supporting. When data fails to function as a compass grounded in women’s lived realities, innovation slows.
Amanda (Clue) added another dimension to the challenge by addressing the persistence of “bikini medicine.” Menstrual cycles are still largely framed through fertility and reproduction priorities, despite hormonal influence on immune function, mental health, sleep, and metabolism. This narrow lens leaves critical questions unanswered; why symptoms vary so widely, why treatments work for some and not others, and who is at risk. Together this limits the ability to design personalized, effective digital health tools.
From insight to infrastructure
The conversation also focused on where opportunity lies. Danika (My Normative) outlined several areas where coordinated action could begin to close the knowledge gap: turning research into practical data/tools that guide decision making, making sex-specific analysis a requirement rather than an option, creating shared data standards that’s beyond reproductive health, and creating an ethical, privacy-enabled system to collect long term data.
To operationalize this work, she introduced three interconnected pillars: data standardization grounded in holistic health; longitudinal, high-fidelity evidence that leverages existing datasets to define meaningful endpoints; and asset and artifact production to unlock stalled innovation and investment. As Danika noted, misaligned data is like giving a tuba a flute score; it produces noise, not music. Alignment is what makes progress possible.
These pillars reinforce one another. Existing data can generate new insights. Those insights can shape future study design. Standardization amplifies impact by enabling comparison across contexts and sectors.
Why this can’t wait and what comes next
The urgency of this work was amplified by a statistic Tracie (Otsuka Precision Health) shared during the discussion: globally, women lose an estimated 75 million years of life annually due to poor health or early death, despite living longer, spending more on healthcare and being more likely to engage with healthcare systems. Fragmentation has real consequences, and without coordinated action, this vicious cycle will persist.
A final theme echoed throughout the roundtable: this work is not about starting from scratch. High-quality research already exists, including well-established links between conditions like asthma and the menstrual cycle. The challenge is not absence, but integration. The goal is to unlock, connect, and scale what already exists rather than duplicate effort.
Danika closed with a call to action. The scope of this work far exceeds what any single organization can accomplish. Data innovators, life sciences leaders, clinicians, founders, patients, and advocates all have a role to play. Community is not peripheral to progress, it is the engine. With coordinated effort and shared purpose, women’s health can move from insight to action.
How to get involved
The roundtable highlighted concrete ways to turn research into impact. Experts can contribute by sharing validated data, helping build interoperable standards, or developing projects that link evidence to real-world solutions.
Trust and privacy are central data that should be secure by design, giving participants confidence to share insights safely. Policy support, like Canada’s Bill S-243, could further make sex-specific analysis and women’s health equity a legal requirement, creating the incentive needed for systemic change.
Progress won’t happen alone. Coordinated collaboration across researchers, clinicians, businesses, and advocates is the engine that will turn women’s health insight into meaningful action.
For more information on the The Persons Project reach out to Danika Kelly – [email protected]
Download The Persons Project