Hello, everyone, and welcome to this next session of the 24th Annual Needham Virtual Healthcare Conference. I'm Ryan MacDonald, and I lead Needham's Health Tech Research efforts. In this session, I'm pleased to be joined by Tempus AI CFO Jim Rogers. Jim, thanks for joining me today.
Thanks, Ryan. Appreciate you having me.
Absolutely. For those of you who are dialed in and listening, we've got about 40 minutes for a fireside chat. I've got a list of questions that I'm going to go through with Jim, but if you do have questions for Jim, please put them into the chat box, and we'll make sure to get those asked and answered towards the end of the session. With that, we'll dive right in. Jim, for those who are less familiar with Tempus AI, how about a brief overview of the business?
Yeah. Tempus AI is about 10 years old. We're really focused on, kind of, AI precision medicine, and really focusing on positively impacting patients through our intelligent diagnostics. Intelligent diagnostics are just lab tests that are customized or tailored for the patient for which they're ordered. At the same time that we run wet lab procedures, we connect to the hospitals', kind of, EHRs to pull clinical data and tailor the results for the individual patients. That represents our genomics business. We also have a large data licensing business where we de-identify all the data that we've amassed over the years, license that pretty broadly to our pharma partners to help aid in their drug discovery efforts. Lastly, we have an AI applications business.
Leveraging all of the data that we have flowing through Tempus as well as the data connections that we have with the hospitals, we're able to do very interesting things like match patients to clinical trials or close care gaps. While that business is still relatively new, it is operating at some scale in terms of the number of algorithms that are being run. It just represents a small amount of revenue today given the lack of reimbursement.
Make sense. Jim, in my view, the tech backbone of Tempus is a real differentiator for the business. Can you talk a bit more about how Tempus' combination of data, AI, and diagnostics is really unmatched in the industry? For those listening, how difficult would it be for another company to replicate what Tempus has built today?
We've been focused, on day one, we're as much a technology company as we are a healthcare company. We have a very large technology footprint, both in terms of number of engineers as well as the amount of data that we've amassed over time. It's really that infrastructure that has allowed us to enable each of the different product offerings. Within genomics, again, layering on that layer of intelligence onto the actual diagnostic is only possible because we have built these integrations into institutions as well as a technology platform that can ingest that data, structure it, harmonize it, and incorporate it into the test results. Similarly, on the data licensing side, again, amassing amounts of data is something that people can do, but unless you have an infrastructure that allows your biopharma partners to make sense of that data, it isn't as useful.
Lastly, on the AI application side of things, we're really leveraging the infrastructure that we built for the genomics business and the data business to deploy these algorithms into the clinic where they have clinical utility. That focus from day one of building a platform that could bring in different data modalities, make sense of it, and unveil it to all those different constituencies is really what we've been focused on for the last 10 years.
Makes sense. Before we dive more deeply into the core drivers of performance in the business and the fundamentals, I'd be remiss if I didn't ask about the macro regulatory environment and some of the material changes going on in the FDA. On the one hand, it seems as though the new administration has been more favorable and forward-thinking with their views on AI. On the other hand, there's been a lot of layoffs in the organization, restructuring, and some big-name departures at the FDA. How do you view the current situation, and are there any first-order or second-order impacts on Tempus' business as things stand? Maybe we can roll tariffs into the discussion, obviously, given the events over the past week or so.
Yeah. I'd say broadly speaking, we think that the initiatives of the new administration will be generally positive for companies like Tempus. What we're focused on doing is incorporating data where it previously hasn't been incorporated, leading to more efficient outcomes is the goal of Tempus. We think, broadly speaking, that will be viewed positively under the new administration. I think in terms of some of the turnover at agencies, that happens in every transition. We're evaluating it just like every other company. We have a very strong regulatory team to help us navigate that, and so we're really focused on executing the business. With respect to tariffs, obviously, this is a changing environment on the tariff side, something we're evaluating very closely, but we don't anticipate any significant impacts as a result of this.
Excellent. While I may be a tech analyst that wants to talk all about the data and AI, this is a healthcare conference after all, and it's important to talk about the genomics business. Let's start in that area. It was about 2/3 of revenue last year and was the source of top-line upside for each of your first three quarters out of the IPO gates. For those getting up to speed, could you cover the tests within your genomics segment and maybe how you think about the growth prospects for each across the portfolio?
Yeah. Our genomics business primarily focused in oncology, although we do have some small efforts in neuropsych as well. Our first assays that we've launched are in therapy selection. We do solid tumor profiling as well as liquid biopsy. That makes up the majority of the revenues to date. We also have had a small offering in inherited cancer screening. We announced and included the acquisition of Ambry in February. For 2024, that was a smaller part of the business, but certainly going forward, will play a bigger role. The last area of testing that we have is MRD. We launched our MRD offering last June. We also have a partnership where the distributor of Personalis is tumor-informed MRD offering. Our internal panel is tumor-naive. We submitted that for reimbursement from MolDX in January, we're gating the volume pending reimburse.
The majority of the revenues come from therapy selection today. That's where all the growth has been over the last several years. Certainly as MRD reimbursement comes online at some point, that will unlock additional volume to be a driver going forward.
Right. Great. As we think about the segment having a lot of nice upside in 2024, it was a combination of obviously pricing upside being a big driver, but also volumes being quite strong. Maybe first on the volume side of things, how would you categorize the strength in 2024 on the volume side and, how much of it is a signal of sort of strong end market growth relative to market share gains by Tempus last year?
Yeah. I'd say on the volume side, the growth is obviously a combination of those two. I think, everyone in this space is experiencing growth, both in all of those areas that I've mentioned, inherited screening, therapy selection, and MRD. Everybody's experiencing some growth. Where we typically win is in the advantage that we have is, again, that layer of intelligence that we put on top of the test. That resonates with physicians, we certainly see some market share gains as a result of that .
If you think about ability to continue to expand your penetration amongst physicians, what are some of the gating factors about how quickly you can move there in terms of increasing your penetration over time?
Some of it is prevalence of genomic testing. As that becomes more and more prevalent, you obviously see some volume gains that way. Again, continuing to build out the data integrations, which make the sharing of data easier, the result delivery a lot easier. That is also helpful in that regard. A lot of it is really just execution. Are you delivering value back to the physicians? In our case, can we deliver additional insights by incorporating clinical data and really making it a seamless experience that presents the best information to the doctor at the right time is what we're focused on.
Yeah, makes sense. You kind of alluded to it a bit there, but can you perhaps remind investors how long the runway for volume growth is for Tempus? What percent of cancer patients receive NGS testing today, and what percent of these patients can you serve within the existing portfolio of tests and assays that you have?
Yeah. The market size is obviously a little bit difficult to calculate, just given you have a lot of public, private, some hospitals that do this type of testing. We believe about 1/3 of cancer patients receive some sort of genetic testing today at some point throughout their cancer journey. We think that likely goes to 2/3, probably multiple times, obviously, when you're talking about MRD. You're going to get tested every several months or whatever, maybe. There's definitely plenty of growth in the market over the next several years, both in therapy selection and certainly in MRD. We think given our unique position of being able to offer everything, will allow us to continue to gain market share and become kind of a one-stop shop for treating oncologists.
Yeah, makes sense. Question from the audience that just came in is, can you remind us on that genomic side, what the main competitors that as you think about gaining and expanding share within that end market are?
Yeah. Within therapy selection for solid tumor, excuse me, certainly, Foundation, Caris, are really who we compete with on the solid tumor side. Within liquid biopsy, Guardant and Caris to some regards. In MRD, obviously Caris the big player today, and we're just kind of getting off the ground. In inherited cancer screening, you're dealing with Myriad and similar companies.
Makes sense. In another segment of our coverage group, the value-based care enablers, they've cited spikes in cancer prevalence within their member populations that began in the latter half of 2024, but are expected to remain at elevated rates in 2025. Are you seeing this phenomenon in your business as well, and how, if at all, is it impacting your assumptions for volume growth in 2025?
I wouldn't say that we've seen a significant change. Obviously, we're typically dealing with metastatic patients when it comes to therapy selection. Again, the market is growing and whether that's coming from increased prevalence rates or from increased testing of cancer patients is a little bit difficult to discern. Certainly the market continues to expand as evidenced by everybody in this space experiencing some growth.
Makes sense. All right. Shifting over to the reimbursement side of things and pricing as a driver, that also was a nice contributor to upside in 2024. Can you talk about last year, what drove pricing increases as you went throughout the year, and then we'll talk about what to expect for 2025 after that?
Yeah. The evolution of reimbursement for us over time, obviously getting Medicare reimbursement in 2022 and 2023 provided a catalyst. In 2024, we had some positive wins on the commercial payer or private payer side as well that led to some upside. As we get into 2025, we have our FDA-approved version of our xT, which is our solid tumor assay that got ADLT status, went into effect on January 1st. We've been migrating volume over to that version of the assay. About 20% will migrate by the end of Q1, and that will grow to 40% by the end of the year. That, along with some improvements in the liquid reimbursement rates for Medicare that went into effect at the beginning of the year, provide additional upside in 2025.
As that ramp of the FDA-approved version continues in 2026, we should continue to see some upside as well.
Makes sense. As you think about, you said obviously goal of xT represents about 25% of volumes goal is to migrate that to about 40% of xT to xT CDx by year-end. How has that migration and the pace of that migration gone thus far? How much visibility do you have in that rate of migration? What are some factors that could accelerate or slow that migration, in your view, for this year?
Yeah. I think we've been very thoughtful on that migration of making sure that it doesn't impact customer experience, which is most important to us. That's why we've taken this approach of let's make sure that we're doing it very thoughtfully. People are seeing the value out of the FDA-approved version of the assay and all those things. We don't have any plans to ramp that more quickly than the trajectory that we are on. There's obviously a host of operational things that go into migrating the assay. You have kits in the field, EMR integrations that need to be updated, all those things. That's the plan that we've laid out and that we're executing on.
Is there any incremental physician education with the migration of xT to CDx as a part of that process?
No significant. The same education that we do with physicians on a regular basis.
Got it. Okay. In terms of further reimbursement upside, there's two paths, higher Medicare reimbursement, like the xT example, but also reimbursement from private payers, which is relatively nascent. How do you think about these two buckets in terms of contributing to future pricing growth over the next couple of years here?
Yeah, I think we've spoken previously around where our average reimbursement is today, around slightly above $1,500 compared to that of others in the space. We still are lagging that a little bit, that demonstrates certainly there's a path to increasing reimbursements that can come, to your point, from various things, securing higher Medicare reimbursement if we bring additional assays through the ADLT process or by working with commercial payers where we've seen some wins in 2024 and certainly have conversations in 2025 to drive benefit there as well. Something like ADLT, while it primarily benefits Medicare, it does have a commercial payer impact as well as something to pay a percentage of the Medicare fee schedule. You don't see that immediately, over the course of the next several years, we would anticipate continuing to see reimbursement.
As you think about, obviously it's a new administration, Dr. Oz just confirmed to lead CMS. Do you expect any impacts on the pace of reimbursement approvals or anything along that process as the new administration comes in and implements its own policies on the CMS side of things?
We obviously haven't seen any changes to date, but something that we're continuing to monitor and evaluate.
Yeah. Building on the genomics business, you recently closed a $600 million acquisition of Ambry, and you mentioned it earlier when you were talking about the breadth of the portfolio. That obviously expands the genomics portfolio quite nicely. Can you just talk about what attracted you to Ambry and why now was the time to make that move in terms of portfolio expansion from an Ambry basis? Yeah.
We had known the Ambry team for quite some time. We had actually used them as our outsource vendor for our xG panel, as I mentioned earlier. We were familiar with the team. In order for us to do an acquisition of that size, it had to check a couple different boxes for us. One is it had to be growing, which they certainly have been growing over the last several years. It needed to positively impact each of our offerings, which I can hit on in a second. Lastly, it had to be profitable or near profitable, so it didn't divert us from our path to profitability. They fortunately checked all those boxes. As it relates to the second one, which is how they impact each of our product offerings. Obviously, the genomic one speaks for itself.
They run lab tests no different than we do. They will allow us to move into other disease areas. While the business is predominantly cancer today, they do have a rare and undiagnosed offering as well. That's always been an area that we thought Tempus's platform could be applicable to, that will unlock that from a genomic standpoint. On the data side, they interact with patients at a different time point than Tempus typically does, where our patients are typically later-stage metastatic patients. A lot of their volume comes from early-stage, newly diagnosed, or at-risk patients. Building a data set that tracks patients from that point all the way through their treatment, we think will be powerful within oncology. Similarly, building data sets in rare and undiagnosed where you have the raw molecular data tied to clinical data will be beneficial to pharma.
Where most of our data licensing today has taken place in oncology, we will build out similar data sets in rare and undiagnosed disorders that we think will allow us to expand that business.
Makes sense. You've noted that Ambry is a well-performing business on its own, and the plan is to let that sort of operate standalone in the near term. Nonetheless, the profitability profile is allowing you to reach profitability in fiscal 2025 here, whereas before that was sort of reserved for 2026, or at least a target for 2026. How do you think about further integrating the businesses long term to sort of benefit from some of those synergies? Maybe talk through what you view as maybe revenue and sort of margin synergies for the business over time.
Yeah. Given our interaction with our business to date within therapy selection, primarily interacting with oncologists, their call point is typically genetic counselors. There's not a lot of overlap between our two businesses, which is why we intend on kind of operating them independently because we're not forced to integrate them kind of broadly in the near term.
Yeah.
As you noted, they're performing quite well, we don't want to disrupt that by forcing integration when it's not necessary. Longer term, the things that we are looking to integrate are how do we incorporate that in the data business?
That's an obvious synergy that we're working on. Again, it doesn't disrupt the genomic side of things, but it's something that we can work on the data side. In terms of revenue synergies, they are primarily an in-network lab.
I think over 90% of their volume is in-network. We're still, as we just were talking about, an out-of-network lab with most folks, and so leveraging those relationships to hopefully expand commercial coverage for the Tempus test will also be a synergy that we'll look to [audio distortion].
Excellent. Moving to the data side of the business. We saw total contract value climb to $940 million from about $900 million. NRR hit 140% from 125%, which I think really underscores the value of Tempus' data. How sustainable do you think these metrics are over time? You've commented that 140% NRR is likely to be the high watermark, how much account growth do you see out there today just in the current environment?
Yeah. I think the 140% is kind of best in class in terms of net revenue retention. While we're thrilled with where we land after 2024, we want it to be clear that we don't anticipate it staying at 140% for the next several years. Even at lower levels, anything north of 100% is a win because it obviously implies that your customers are spending more in the current year than they spent in the previous year. We have a very strong customer base. We work with 19 of the top 20 big pharma companies, over 200 biotechs. When you think about where does the growth come from, a lot of it comes from existing customers.
These relationships tend to evolve over time, where someone may license a small amount of data to begin with, maybe one cohort of data to understand what they're going to get to see if they see value of it. Then they typically come back and expand that to either multiple cohorts and then eventually, at least for the ones that we've publicly announced these strategic collaborations, where they realize they're going to incorporate it in their drug development processes, and want to commit to large amounts of spend in exchange for larger discounts. The AstraZeneca, GSK of the world, those are the types of relationships that we've fostered over the last several years.
Makes sense. Your strong data performance has really come in a tough macro for healthcare data purchasing. Clearly you're differentiating from other vendors in the market. In our checks, it seems like vendors compete mainly on two points, either uniqueness or proprietary nature of the dataset, and data visualization for ease of use, and sort of manipulating the data. Where do you see Tempus as being the most competitive or differentiated across those two buckets today?
It's really both of them. On the data side, the data that we're typically licensing are the raw molecular data tied to the longitudinal clinical information associated with those patients on a de-identified basis. That is a unique dataset that we're obviously generating the molecular data internally, leveraging these integrations to get treatment and response information for those patients as well. We're uniquely positioned to supply that data to biopharma. Separately, as we've talked about before, is you really need a data infrastructure that allows researchers to make sense of it. We have a tool called Lens that our biopharma partners leverage to interrogate the data. They can do their model building right in Lens. It's not just the data, it's how do you present it to your customers so they can get value out of it very quickly.
That's what we've been focused on. Obviously, amassing a lot of data that can be a driver, but then also making tools for folks to make sense of it —sensible.
Yeah, makes sense. As you think about the current environment, obviously, we're getting real time updates on potential tariffs into pharma companies, biopharma. There's sort of no place to hide here. As you've spoken with your life sciences customers on the data side over the course of the last few months here, it's a very uncertain macro. What's sort of the appetite or demand picture look like for incremental data purchases relative to past years here? Are you seeing any big changes there?
We haven't seen any significant changes to date. I think there's two things. One is, we talked about remaining total contract value. Obviously, that gives us some visibility because we have these multi-year subscriptions in place.
That allows us to just execute on the agreements that are already there. The other thing that we would say is that, in times when budgets in pharma tighten or become constricted, they oftentimes look for partners such as Tempus that allow them to spend money more efficiently.
By leveraging our data to design a trial that maybe more possible resulting in success, they're willing to make that small investment up front relative to the amount of money that's spent on the trial. We actually see a little bit of a benefit as budgets tighten, primarily because people are looking to spend money more efficiently, and that's what our data allows them to do.
Makes sense. We got another question from the audience about sort of value of the data by cohort. One of the, I think, impressive aspects of when you went public is sort of the metric about how long you've been able to monetize original cohorts of data. How has that trended in terms of the longevity of ability to monetize cohort data? Are you seeing specific cohorts that are showing strength versus, or weakness relative to other years?
Yeah. The intent in sharing the cohort data was really a demonstration of how our business model was kind of fundamentally different from a diagnostic company that would run a test, bill insurance, and get paid or not get paid, and that was kind of the business. What we intended to set out to do is we have multiple transactions with this data. We're obviously running a test, billing insurance upon data creation and report delivery to the physician, but then de-identifying all that data and licensing it downstream to biopharma. That's what results in those transactions that occur over multiple years. In terms of, the cohort metric isn't something that we track on a regular basis because, again, when a pharma company shows up and says, "I want to cohort these patients," we don't go in and pick from cohorts.
We're going to have them choose the records that are most relevant to the analysis that they're looking to do. Again, they all behave very similarly, but it's not something that we intend on disclosing going forward because it's not really meaningful to look at the 2019 cohort versus the 2020. As long as the data business continues to grow, that overall data asset is really what's driving that network.
As you think about scaling the TCV number, how much future growth do you expect sort of from new logos versus ability to expand transitioning? I know we talked about this a little bit on the NRR side, but just kind of as you think about how you think about mix of growth within the data business over time.
Yeah, it's a combination of both. I'd say on the total remaining contract value, I think we had a question on the last earnings call around how should we think about growth within that TCV. At the level that it's at today relative to the size of the business from a revenue perspective, obviously, we have multiple years of visibility. Over the long term, that number should continue to increase, but we're not focused on it quarter to quarter. If you went back three or four years, that number was probably $300 million or $400 million. We have seen growth over a long time horizon and would expect that to continue. Excuse me. On any short term, any nuance quarter to quarter, we're not providing.
Another audience question we got, it's maybe a follow-up to sort of the Ambry aspect and sort of not having a large data business today and as you try to integrate that in. Can you just speak to what, from an infrastructure perspective, investment-wise, do you need to do to be able to better capture that data ahead of a monetization? How difficult is that to build out over time?
Yeah. We'll be able to leverage the integrations that we've already built with hospital systems. That's really when you think about the combination of they have this very strong genomics business and test volume that obviously generates molecular data. Leveraging the connections that we have to over 50% of the hospitals in the U.S., it's really the combination of those two things. The infrastructure in terms of the technology build is what we've been doing for the last 10 years, and so we don't have to create something new. It's really leveraging the infrastructure that's already been built.
Makes sense. Maybe on the M&A front, you made a recent small acquisition of Deep 6 AI. Can you talk about the value proposition and what that piece of technology brings to the business?
Yeah. Deep 6 has been focused on clinical trial matching. They have a strong network, a strong technology platform. We obviously do clinical trial matching, and so it's kind of a natural fit from a connectivity standpoint. I think getting access to more, excuse me, more patients will allow us to more efficiently match [audio distortion] to trials. Excuse me.
Well, we'll give you a minute—
Yeah
recover. Just a reminder, great questions from the audience so far. If you have more, please put them in the chat box and we'll continue to filter those through in the last 10 minutes or so that we've got here. Within the data business, you also have the AI applications, and you kind of talked about at the beginning, which you continue to validate and gain reimbursement for, like with the ECG-AF algo, which was recently approved to generate a $138 per test reimbursement to Tempus. Reimbursement for algos is sort of a long-term catalyst, how do you view the framework for that reimbursement developing? Should we think of it as an eventual sort of inflection point, or when should we see that inflection point in the business?
Is it more of a slow grind that you sort of continue to gradually build momentum in over a multi-year period here?
Yeah. The advantage that we have in the AI applications business, again, we're leveraging the same infrastructure, data, and connections that drive the genomics and the data business. Developing new algorithms and deploying those is relatively easy for us to do. As you mentioned, reimbursement is not there for the majority of them, although there are some positive signs with the AFib predictor. The nice thing is we're able to make these investments relatively easily, such that once reimbursement does kick in, we would see an acceleration of revenue relatively quickly. We're still in the days of laying the groundwork, getting these algorithms into market. Certainly, getting reimbursement will be a long game, and we have to participate in that and convince payers of the clinical utility of these types of algorithms.
When that actually comes, you will have an inflection point because again, these things are already out there. They're already being run tens of thousands of times. When reimbursement kicks in, you can scale very, very quickly.
Yeah. Do you envision needing a separate standalone sales motion for this? Or do you view it as an extension amongst the portfolio of tests that your existing sales organization already has in their toolkit, if you will?
I think it depends on the disease area, right? Within oncology, obviously, we have a field sales force that interacts with oncologists on a regular basis. Something like cardio is something new, right? That may require those conversations to happen. You can have them both at the system-wide and also at the individual physician standpoint. We'll evaluate each on a case-by-case basis.
What does this do from a margin perspective for the business? How does the gross margins on the algos compare to that of the core businesses?
Yeah. The algos from a margin perspective is very high, north of 85%. To the extent that that grows dramatically, that would positively impact margins.
Makes sense. What's private payer thinking been around reimbursement for the algos? How is that evolving?
I think it's still too early to tell on that front. I think obviously you need to demonstrate that these have clinical utility and can help route patients to the appropriate therapy at the right time. Once you do that, there's no reason why commercial payers would treat them any differently than Medicare or Medicare Advantage would.
Got it. Another one from the audience is around the CRO business. Obviously, that was an area of maybe a little bit of slowdown last year, a bit of a drag on annual growth, data and other business. How do you think about what's the right magnitude of investment for that business moving forward and when do we start to maybe see a re-acceleration in that business, if one comes at all?
Yeah. I'd say it is not a core offering to our data licensing clients. We originally purchased the CRO as we launched our clinical trials matching network to get an understanding of how clinical trials operated, because it wasn't an expertise that we had in-house. I'd say that they primarily serve biotech customers who have had some funding challenges. That certainly had an impact on 2024. It's not a business that we're going to invest dramatically in. It does meet a need for some of our biotech partners. We'll continue to offer that. As funding comes back, my guess is you would see some positive impact. It's not something that we're baking in 2025.
Makes sense. Now that you're expecting profitability in 2025, a year ahead of schedule, maybe help investors think about capital allocation and what your appetite for future M&A is. What's the framework that we should look at? Because you made obviously a big, more transformative acquisition with Ambry. You've made some smaller tuck-in ones, obviously, with Deep 6. How do you view the opportunities on that front moving forward?
Yeah. We've long said that as gross profit dollars increase, some amount will be reinvested in the business, some amount will be dropped to the bottom line such that we could reach adjusted EBITDA breakeven or positive in 2025. That's the path that we're on. In terms of M&A, we've also said that on the genomic side, with the addition of Ambry, we think our portfolio is rounded out and that we don't need any additional assets on the genomic side. If we do anything, it would be more on the data or AI application side, something like Deep 6, but smaller tuck-in acquisitions, not a very large acquisition. All of these things, the way that we look at them is we don't want them to divert our path to profitability. As we evaluate assets, that's the framework that we use.
Makes sense. As we think about the structural profitability of the business, just given the acceleration to profitability that you're hitting now, where are the main points of leverage across the P&L? What do you view as the key drivers there? Has the inclusion of Ambry structurally changed the way you think about the long-term profitability targets of the business?
In terms of the, obviously reimbursement going up provides some upside from a profitability standpoint. The data business operates at a very high margin, so that continues to grow and margins improve on the genomic side. That is what ultimately is leading to that improvement in the core business. Ambry was already profitable before we purchased them and will continue to be so. The combination of those two things is how we're getting to positive adjusted EBITDA in 2025. I think as we go forward, identifying where we want to make investments is done on a case-by-case basis. We want to make sure that we're investing such that we can have this business grow at a healthy rate for the long term.
Striking that balance between obviously getting to profitability and demonstrating the leverage in the business, but also continuing to invest for the future is really what we're focused on.
Makes sense. Maybe one more call for questions from the audience. One wondering about an update on the partnership with Personalis and how that continues to trend in the marketplace.
Yeah. The receptivity of the reception of the test has been great. It's obviously a very high-performing test. Similar to Tempus, though they don't have reimbursement yet, and so we're in the same spot where we're going to gate volume until reimbursement kicks in. The reception within the marketplace has been great.
Excellent. Well, it looks like there's no other questions from the audience. Jim will give everyone a few minutes back. Certainly a very exciting business and growth opportunity in what is an uncertain and volatile market. Want to thank you for taking the time to educate investors on the Tempus AI story and the opportunity here, and want to thank everyone for joining us today.
Thanks, Ryan. Really appreciate the opportunity.
Thanks. Have a good day.