NASDAQ: AIDX

Products

OneTest
for Cancer

The
Problem

Of
the ten deadliest cancers in the U.S., only three — breast, colon, and prostate — have widely adopted
screening modalities. This is despite growing evidence that early detection saves or extends lives for cancers of the lung, liver, pancreas,
esophagus, and ovaries, which are not yet the subject of widespread asymptomatic screening. The survival rate for the deadliest
cancers is closely linked to the stage at the time of diagnosis. With lung cancer, for example, some studies show a five-year survival
rate approaching 90% for screen-detected Stage 1 cancers (see Henschke, et al. “Survival of patients with Stage 1 Lung Cancer
Detected on CT Screening,” N. Engl. J. Med. 355 (2006)). That survival plummets to under 5% for cancers first
diagnosed in Stage 4.

To
address this void, a few MCEDs have entered the market in recent years and are generating significant enthusiasm among many medical practitioners,
policymakers, employers, and consumers. On February 3, 2026, the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Coverage Act
was signed into law. This law creates a pathway for Medicare coverage of MCEDs intended to begin in 2028. As discussed in the sections
that follow, we intend to pursue Medicare coverage for our MCED, as we believe it offers compelling advantages over competing tests priced
two to three times higher than our OneTest for Cancer.

Additionally,
on February 26, 2025, the “Firefighter Investments to Recognize Exposure to Cancer Act of 2025” was reintroduced as
H.R. 1610. If enacted, the legislation would allocate $700 million in grants to American firefighters to receive MCED tests through the
Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA. FEMA and several states, including Maryland, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Vermont,
and New Jersey, already reimburse their firefighters for obtaining MCEDs, including our OneTest for Cancer (firefighters have proven
higher incidence and death rates for several cancers and are a major segment of our customer base). We expect many more states to appropriate
funding to reimburse their fire departments for MCED tests like our OneTest for Cancer in 2026 and 2027.

1

This
focus on MCEDs has been further bolstered by the activities of high-profile companies offering or developing circulating tumor DNA, or
ctDNA, based tests, such as Grail’s Galleri test, following technological advances in next-generation DNA sequencing and machine
learning techniques. While ctDNA-based tests are newer and are seeing growing use by scientists, clinicians, and self-insured employers,
they are significantly more expensive and tend to miss many earlier stage cancers, as evidenced by the interim results of a randomized
clinical trial in the United Kingdom that was announced by Grail in February 2026. As discussed in the sections below, the best available
balance of evidence suggests that protein tumor marker based MCEDs, like our OneTest for Cancer, may overcome the limitations of ctDNA
based tests for earlier stage detection. Additionally, ctDNA tests use larger quantities of blood that require venipuncture whereas proteomic-based
MCEDs, like our OneTest for Cancer, work well with smaller volumes of capillary blood that can be easily collected in retail locations
or at home without a phlebotomist.

Our
Solution

To
address this market, we are offering what we believe to be the first MCED blood tests to enter the American market based mainly on a
panel of protein tumor markers, or PTMs. PTMs have been extensively validated and are widely utilized in certain regions of the world
for cancer screening (the Premium version of OneTest also includes inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers). Our patented approach improves
upon the use of these biomarkers with various algorithms and is powered by AI. We believe that ours is the first and only MCED on the
market in the U.S. that (i) is available at a starting price of under $200, (ii) can be accessed at home without painful needles, and
(iii) has been demonstrated in studies conducted in 2024 by National Cancer Institute, or the NCI, to correctly identify significant
numbers of otherwise deadly cancers at early stages. These cancers include those of the lung, pancreas, and ovaries, which, when detected
at an earlier stage, give the best chance of survival.

Our
OneTest for Cancer algorithm combines the levels of protein biomarkers such as carcinoembryonic antigen, or CEA, alpha-fetoprotein, or
AFP, prostate specific antigen, or PSA, and others, with patient information (e.g., age, gender, smoking history, etc.). We report the
values of the biomarkers along with a proprietary score indicating the likelihood of being diagnosed with cancer within a year of the
test date (a sample lab report for OneTest Standard is shown below).

2

OneTest
Premium, introduced in late 2023, also includes inflammatory and metabolic biomarkers, which are essentially probing the affected individual’s
immune and metabolic response to the cancer. Exclusively licensed from BioInfra Life Science, Inc., or BioInfra, OneTest Premium calculates
the likelihood of eight specific tumor types rather than a pan-cancer likelihood score as is presented with OneTest Standard.

Since
all the biomarkers tested in Standard are included in Premium, consumers of Premium, which comprise more than two-thirds of all OneTest
customers, also get the Standard Report page.

We
have positioned OneTest as a “top of funnel” first screening test due to its relatively low cost, higher sensitivity for
earlier stage cancers, and ease of access due to the small amount of blood required. Those with abnormal OneTest results should receive
follow-up, which in many cases may be limited to repeat testing to establish biomarker baselines and assess changes in biomarker values
over time. Significantly high values or concerning changes in these values can subsequently, under the auspices of a healthcare provider,
be followed up by imaging and ctDNA based MCEDs, which can better pinpoint location and type of possible malignancies. By way of example,
suspicious results on a “top of funnel” first screening test might be used to indicate a second screening test which could
be a molecular (ctDNA sequencing) or imaging modality which in turn might lead to tissue biopsy as the definitive diagnostic. This approach
very much differentiates OneTest from competing tests, including other MCED tests, whether based on ctDNA, protein biomarkers or other
modalities. Most of these other screening tests are placed further down in the funnel and lead directly to more expensive and more invasive
definitive diagnostic tests. As such, these competing modalities focus more on achieving the highest levels of specificity in order to
reduce the number of false positive results that could lead directly to an expensive and invasive test. Because OneTest is positioned
at the “top of the funnel,” immediate follow-up tests are less expensive and generally not invasive (beyond a second blood
draw). The performance characteristics of OneTest are more focused on sensitivity and the detection of true positives, as a result of
accepting a lower specificity, as false positives will be removed further down the testing funnel.

Key
Competitive Advantages

Our
patented MCED approach, based on PTMs versus ctDNA, provides the following advantages (we refer to these advantages as our Straight A’s):
Affordability, Accuracy for Earlier Stage Cancers, Accessibility, Acceleration Over Time, AI Compatible, Assists Imaging, and Advisory
Expertise.

Affordability.
Since the analyzers and reagents we utilize in our lab are individually approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA,
and widely used around the world, and feature “walk-away” automation and robotics, the costs to run these tests are quite
low compared to DNA sequencing. Since our labor and reagent costs are lower, we can pass these savings on to the customer. Furthermore,
in most cases, follow-up testing of high biomarkers is covered by insurance if prescribed by the customer’s own healthcare provider
and can be run by other labs in-network with the customer’s health insurance plan. Our OneTest Standard is priced at under $200
versus $950 for Grail’s Galleri, the only other MCED being widely marketed in the U.S. at this time.

3

Accuracy
for Earlier Stage Cancers. Evidence suggests that tumor antigens (proteins) are more readily detectable in the blood at earlier stages
than ctDNA. PTMs are produced in large quantities by living cancer cells as a part of their normal biological function. These proteins
are subsequently released into the surrounding tissue and blood. On the other hand, ctDNA is derived from dying tumor cells at single
copy number per cell and one would expect minimal cell death in early-stage cancers which consist of relatively few cells as the tumor
is still quite small. While DNA detection methods are very sensitive, given the very low amount of ctDNA released into blood, a very
large blood sample would need to be collected to expect the sample to actually contain the ctDNA. Indeed, clinical studies have demonstrated
that the sensitivity of ctDNA-based MCEDs for early-stage cancers is less than 20% (see (i) Pons-Belda OD, Fernandez-Uriarte A, Diamandis
EP. “Can Circulating Tumor DNA Support a Successful Screening Test for Early Cancer Detection? The Grail Paradigm.” Diagnostics
(Basel). 2021 Nov 23;11(12):2171. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11122171. PMID: 34943407; PMCID: PMC8700281; (ii) Pons-Belda OD, Fernandez-Uriarte
A, Diamandis EP. “Multi Cancer Early Detection by Using Circulating Tumor DNA-The Galleri Test.” Reply to Klein et al. The
Promise of Multicancer Early Detection. Comment on ‘Pons-Belda et al. Can Circulating Tumor DNA Support a Successful Screening
Test for Early Cancer Detection? The Grail Paradigm. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 2171’. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022 May 17;12(5):1244.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12051244. PMID: 35626399; PMCID: PMC9141547; and (iii) Bittla P, Kaur S, Sojitra V, Zahra A, Hutchinson J, Folawemi
O, Khan S. “Exploring Circulating Tumor DNA (CtDNA) and Its Role in Early Detection of Cancer: A Systematic Review.” Cureus.
2023 Sep 22;15(9):e45784. doi: 10.7759/cureus.45784. PMID: 37745752; PMCID: PMC10516512).

On
February 19, 2026, Grail announced results from the U.K.’s National Health Service trial which compared annual screening with the
Galleri MCED based on ctDNA against routine screenings among 142,000 adults aged 50-77 years. The study found that adding Galleri to
conventional screening failed to reduce later stage III-IV cancer diagnoses over three years. While there is no comparable prospective
trial data for OneTest, the best available balance of evidence suggests that yearly screening with the biomarkers measured in OneTest,
aided with machine learning, would reduce the numbers of late-stage diagnoses.

BioInfra,
the developer of OneTest Premium, published data for their related test offered in Korea, iFINDER, which is only slightly different from
the test we offer (“Diagnostic value of combining tumor and inflammatory biomarkers in detecting common cancers in Korea”
(2021) Clinica Chimica Acta, 516, 169-178). At our request, the data was recalculated, restricting the biomarkers to those used
in OneTest Premium and resetting the individual cutoffs to achieve greater than 98% specificity for each cancer type. This data is from
case-control (retrospective) cohorts including 1199 subjects (607 cases and 592 controls). Resulting data from these training/validation
cohorts are reported in the table below:

Cancer
Stage
%
Sensitivity

@98% Specificity
Cancer
Stage
%
Sensitivity

@98% Specificity

Lung
Overall
51
Prostate
Overall
75.5

Stage I
33.3

Stage I
100

Stage II
61.1

Stage II
58.3

Stage Ill
52.9

Stage III
88.9

Stage IV
90.5

Liver
Overall
88.6
Ovary
Overall
73.7

Stage I
85.7

Stage I
25

Stage II
90.9

Stage II
100

Stage Ill
100

Stage III
100

Stage IV
100

Stage IV
80

Colorectal
Overall
72.1
Gastric
Overall
33.3

Stage I
64.3

Stage I
27.3

Stage II
80

Stage II
50

Stage Ill
75.9

Stage III
80

Stage IV
100
Breast
Overall
18.8

Pancreas
Overall
92.7

Stage I
15.4

Stage I
85.7

Stage II
15.4

Stage II
95.7

Stage III
57.1

Stage Ill
100

Stage IV
85.7

In
the first quarter of 2023, BioInfra conducted a real-world analysis of their test performance based on data from Korean governmental
cancer registries. It looked at results of the BioInfra test as reported in the health records of individual clients who purchased the
test over several years (n=42,364) and correlated these results to health outcomes (cancer diagnoses) in the ensuing 12 months. The test
performance was excellent compared to testing individual biomarkers alone, without our algorithms. BioInfra in their peer-reviewed publication,
“Diagnostic value of combining tumor and inflammatory biomarkers in detecting common cancers in Korea” (2021) Clinica
Chimica Acta, 516, 169-178, directly compared the area under the curve, or AUC, of the receiver operating characteristic curve for
the MCED to that of single tumor markers (CEA for colon cancer, AFP for liver cancer, Cyfra 21.1 or CEA for lung cancer, PSA for prostate
cancer). Note that a higher AUC indicates better performance and that the best possible AUC is 1.0.

4

Cancer
MCED
AUC
Single
Marker AUC

Colon
0.9603
0.7183

Liver
0.9685
0.7943

Lung
0.9424
0.7609

Prostate
0.9848
0.9635

Based
on the retrospective (newly diagnosed cases) and prospective (pre-diagnostic cases) data available to date, the premium version is expected
to have improved sensitivity and better organ specificity to help identify the tumor of origin. The following table summarizes the data
available to date.

Cancer
Sensitivity
Specificity

Liver
47.1%
98.7%

Lung
45.5%
94.9%

Pancreatic
42.9%
99.2%

Prostate
42.2%
98.3%

Colorectal
34.0%
97.8%

Ovarian
29.7%
97.5%

Breast
20.2%
96.5%

Stomach
8.6%
98.4%

Typically,
data generated from a pre-diagnostic cohort (i.e. specimens collected before a diagnosis) such as that shown above is less compelling
data from newly diagnosed patients. It should also be noted that reducing the specificity to around 85% would substantially boost the
sensitivity in a manner that would avoid missing many cancers while not a consequential number of false positives. We believe that with
the “funnel” approach described above (i.e., repeating high biomarkers and utilizing ultrasound and other low-cost imaging
technologies), a specificity of around 85% would identify most early stage cancer without causing too much expense to the healthcare
system.

The
following table demonstrates the performance of OneTest Premium for different cancer stages. The data is from case-control data provided
by BioInfra (limiting to only the biomarkers used in OneTest Premium and holding the specificity for each cancer type at >98%). The
specificity of our commercial test is approximately 95%, resulting in higher sensitivities than shown here. Please note that sensitivity
is for single time point testing only. The sensitivity of most biomarkers in OneTest (CEA, carbohydrate antigen, or CA, 125, CA 19.9,
AFP, PSA) have been shown in different studies to improve by 10-15% (absolute values) with serial (repeat) testing for cancers of the
lung, ovaries, pancreas, liver and prostate.

Sensitivity
(@ >98% Specificity)

Stage
OneTest

All
62%

I
44%

II
61%

III
77%

IV
86%

The OneTest data cited above was from an East
Asian population. To assess our performance in an American cohort, in 2024, we participated in a blinded validation study of OneTest Premium
sponsored and conducted by the NCI to compare the performance of various MCEDs. A more complete description of the study design can be
found in LeeVan,E., et al., “Framework to Select Multi-Cancer Detection Assays in the National Cancer Institute’s Vanguard
Study.” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2025). We do not know which other companies were involved in this study, nor do
we have access to the data from the other MCED tests to perform our own direct head-to-head comparison of the results. We were informed
by several NCI staff scientists that our test was among the better performers in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Using blood specimens
collected 18-30 years ago in healthy individuals up to six months prior to diagnosis as part of a prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian
clinical trial, we correctly identified half of early stage pancreatic and ovarian cancers. The following graph was prepared by NCI’s
new cancer screening research network team in May 2024. NCI estimated that the effective specificity of OneTest Premium was approximately
95%. For the purposes of this study, capillary collected samples were not available. However, as we have demonstrated equivalence in our
labs between the use of capillary and venipuncture samples and as such the NCI study does inform on the performance of the capillary test
by inference. Thus, we believe that the NCI study contributes to the validation of OneTest Standard and Premium.

5

Additional
studies published in late 2025 using test panels nearly identical to OneTest build upon this evidence base. In a blinded validation study
published in November 2025, investigators at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported that a protein based multicancer test—with most
of the same biomarkers measured in OneTest (Standard version)—identified nearly 90% of early stage lung cancers and flagged multiple
other cancers a median of 12–21 months prior to diagnosis, supporting the sensitivity of protein tumor markers during early oncogenesis.
See “Validation of a blood test for multi-cancer risk stratification in a lung cancer screening cohort.” Fahrmann, et al.
medRxiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.20.25340518.

A
large, multicenter validation study published in October 2025 evaluated an AI enhanced blood test integrating seven well established
protein tumor markers (6 of which are part of OneTest) across more than 15,000 participants from seven centers in three countries (USA,
China, and Brazil). The study demonstrated consistent cancer signal detection across diverse populations, with measurable sensitivity
even in Stage I disease and progressively higher detection rates as cancers advanced. See “A large-scale, multi-centre validation
study of an AI-empowered blood-based test for multi-cancer early detection,” npj Precision Oncology volume 9, Article number: 321
(2025).

It should be noted that neither of the studies reported above use an
identical product as our OneTest for Cancer. That said, they were close enough in terms of biomarkers analyzed and likely algorithm approach
they support the validity of our test.

Accessibility.
In 2024, our scientific and laboratory personnel successfully demonstrated equivalency in the performance of OneTest using capillary
blood with that of venous blood. The requirement of engaging with a phlebotomist adds cost and burden to many of our customers, especially
those who purchase OneTest online. Since our test requires only a fraction of the blood typically collected through venipuncture, we
have shown that the test can function comparatively with capillary blood collected from fingerstick or the upper arm. Fortunately, several
new devices are entering the market to improve capillary collection. Obviating the need for a phlebotomist should permit our test to
be more easily accessed at pharmacy counters and even at home, thereby increasing uptake and adoption.

6

The
small quantities of blood required permits capillary (upper arm) blood collection that can be easily self-administered at home, at retail
outlets including pharmacies, and at workplaces (e.g., fire stations), avoiding the need for special appointments with phlebotomists
and painful needles. Ease of access boosts compliance with follow-up testing which aids in the earlier detection of more cancers.

Acceleration
Over Time. Many studies suggest that annual screening with PTMs boosts sensitivity for many cancer types (lung, pancreatic, liver,
etc.), as described in more detail in the table below.

Tumor Antigen
Cancer
Type
Evidence
of Improvement in Detecting Early-Stage Cancers

CA125
Ovarian

Early-stage
detection improves from 10% to 50% in high-risk women if tested quarterly and from 25% to 40% in normal risk postmenopausal women
if tested yearly. See Skates et al. CCR 2017, Rosenthal et. al. JCO 2017, Jacobs Menon et. al. Lancet 2015.

CA19-9
Pancreatic
In
a pre-diagnostic cohort (PLCO), levels of CA19-9 increased exponentially starting at 2 years prior to diagnosis with sensitivities
reaching 60% at 99% specificity within 0-6 months prior to diagnosis for all cases and 50% at 99% specificity for cases diagnosed
with early-stage disease. See Hanash et al. Lead-Time Trajectory of CA19-9 as an Anchor Marker for Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection
- PubMed (nih.gov).

CA19-9
& CEA
Pancreatic

In
a pre-diagnostic cohort (PLCO), levels of CA 19-9 and CEA demonstrated significant velocity related to time to diagnosis suggesting
that serial measurements of these biomarkers may enhance panel performance. See Prediagnostic serum biomarkers as early detection
tools for pancreatic cancer in a large prospective cohort study - PubMed (nih.gov).

CA-19-9
Biliary
Tract
CA19-9
remained stable in patients who were cancer-free but increased early in those who developed biliary tract cancer. See Regular CA19-9
measurement might improve early detection of these malignancies. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15146

AFP
Liver
Most
studies to date have evaluated AFP using a fixed threshold. We have found that algorithms that incorporate patient screening history
increased the likelihood of earlier detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. The sensitivity of AFP alone was 59%. When we incorporate
the trajectory, the sensitivity improves to 81%. See Tayob et al., Abstract #69, 11th NCI Early Detection Research Network
Scientific Workshop (2019).

PSA
Prostate

The
Maximum Likelihood Estimation-PSA, or MLE-PSA, model with a 50% cut-off probability has a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 85%,
positive predictive value, or PPV, of 89%, and negative predictive value, or NPV, of 82%. By contrast, a single PSA value with a
4ng/ml threshold has a sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 33%, PPV of 56%, and NPV of 36% using the same population of patients used
to generate the MLE-PSA model. Based on serial PSA measurements, the use of the MLE-PSA model significantly (p-value < 0.0001)
improves prostate cancer detection and reduces the need for prostate biopsy. See JDS-1173.pdf (jds-online.com).

CEA
Colorectal
In
a study in the United Kingdom, CEA levels increased towards diagnosis in a significant proportion (1/3) of colorectal cancer cases
(half of late-stage cases), whereas longitudinal profiles were static in both benign and non-cancer controls. Combining CEA with
other biomarkers (e.g. CA-19.9) further improves detection capabilities for colorectal cancer according to various studies. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4506388/.

7

Throughout
East Asia, tumor antigens are routinely tested as part of yearly health checkups. We obtained real-world data from a cohort 135,236 individuals
tested with at least for tumor markers (AFP, CEA, PSA, CA 19-9, and CA 125) at Chongqing Hospital (CHQ) in China, of which 433 were subsequently
diagnosed with cancer.

Computers
in Biology and Medicine 144 (2022) 105362

Furthermore,
repeat testing of slightly high biomarkers at ~2-month intervals substantially lowers false positive rates, according to the medical
directors of health checkup centers at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan and Seoul National University Hospital in Korea. Both of
these reputable medical institutions have at least two decades of experience offering PTMs for screening.

AI
Compatible. We believe that analyzing well established biomarkers like tumor proteins and inflammatory biomarkers permits AI to be
meaningfully leveraged both in test development and in the interpretation of results by end users. In certain regions of the world, especially
East Asia, an aggressive cancer screening posture has been common for decades. Tens of millions of individuals in Japan, Korea, China,
and Taiwan undertake 3-5 hour “health checks” each year that usually include blood tests for an array of cancers. Typically,
these blood tests measure the levels of between three to eight tumor antigens, which are proteins secreted by tumors that can be detected
using antibodies. Large-scale observational studies by our collaborators in Taiwan using data from cancer registries demonstrate that
these tests are useful for detecting even early-stage cancers (see Y.-H. We et al., “Cancer screening through a multi-analyte
serum biomarker panel during health check-up examinations: Results from a 12-year experience,” Clinica Chemica Acta 450
(2015)). However, using our patented methodology, this screening approach can be rendered significantly more accurate using machine learning
algorithms that integrate the outcomes of tens of thousands of tested individuals together with clinical factors (e.g., age, gender,
smoking history, etc.) with the biomarker levels (see “Improving Multi-Tumor Biomarker Health Check-up Tests with Machine Learning
Algorithms,” Cancers, 2020 Jun 1;12(6):1442).

We
have directly demonstrated this advantage in real-world population studies including 27,938 individuals performed in collaboration with
researchers in East Asia, where tumor antigens are currently used to test millions of individuals without the added value of our AI-enhanced
methods (see “Cancers Screening in an Asymptomatic Population by Using Multiple Tumour Markers.” PLoS One. 2016;11(6)
and “Improving Multi-Tumor Biomarker Health Check-up Tests with Machine Learning Algorithms” Cancers 2020 Jun 1;12(6):1442).
These studies/publications indicate clear and significant improvements in AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for overall cancers as well
as individual cancers. This research and development collaboration was pursuant to an exclusive license, technology transfer and commercialization
agreement that we entered into with Taiwan-based Chang Gung Medical Memorial Hospital, Linkou, or CGMH, on November 21, 2018, and an
option agreement to obtain this license that we entered into with CGMH on April 17, 2017. Pursuant to this agreement, we obtained an
exclusive license to make, have made, use, sell, import, commercialize and otherwise distribute any product or service, including but
not limited to subscriptions to cloud-based software as a service, that contains, relies on or was developed by CGMH’s technology,
which includes CGMH’s raw data (including biomarker values and clinical information from individuals screened for cancer with a
blood test at CGMH’s facilities), code, software, algorithms, know-how and methodology associated with a multi-biomarker approach
for the screening of at least three cancer types developed in part or entirely by the CGMH Department of Laboratory Medicine, as well
as improvements and derivatives thereof; provided that CGMH has the right to improve and use its technology for experimental use and/or
management of human patients at any CGMH facility in Taiwan. As consideration for this license, we paid an option fee of $75,000 and
a license fee of $150,000 in cash and $300,000 in common stock (through the issuance of 92,025 shares of common stock) upon exercise
of the option. As further consideration, we agreed to pay CGMH royalties in the amount of 6% of Net Sales (as defined in the agreement);
provided that if we are required to pay royalties to a third party, then the royalty due to CGMH shall be reduced by 1% for each 1% due
to such third party; and provided further, that such royalty shall not in any event be less than 3%. We also agreed to pay CGMH $100,000
in cash upon the earlier of (i) our reaching $2 million in net sales of the licensed products or (ii) when the cumulative profit margin
due to sales directly attributable to CGMH’s technology is at least $450,000. Neither of these milestones has been met. This agreement
also includes a transitional assistance project involving the provision of clinical data (including prospective data), algorithm improvements,
serum sample testing services, and clinical consulting. The term of this agreement is for twenty years commencing on February 1, 2018
(the date that the option was exercised) and the last-to-expire licensed patent is scheduled to expire in 2036. As of December 31, 2025,
we have paid $233,173 in royalties to CGMH pursuant to this agreement.

8

State-of-the-art
machine learning and other AI based programs require large amounts of data. Because PTMs are widely used for screening and early used
in East Asia there is much published and unpublished data that can be leveraged without the burden and expense of running our own large
scale clinical trials. This advantage is covered in several of our issued patents and pending patent applications.

In
addition to being embedded in OneTest, AI is used by our consumers to help them interpret
test results. Competing tests like Galleri (Grail) and CancerGuard (Exact Sciences), which
do not disclose the biomarkers or gene sequences analyzed, practice a so-called “black
box” approach. In contrast, our lab reports clearly display the biomarkers and their
levels as is common with routine lab tests. This permits consumers to optionally upload their
lab results into their preferred large language models like Chat GPT or Claude along with
other information about prior tests, health and family history, lifestyle, symptoms, etc.
and receive interpretation or advice if they so desire.

Assists
Imaging. Published studies conclude that PTMs like AFP, CEA, and CA 19.9 can help resolve ambiguous findings on an ultrasound or
CT scan to aid in the early detection of liver, testicular, lung, and pancreatic cancers. This phenomenon would be especially helpful
where customers are offered MCEDs, ultrasound, and LDCT scans. For example, a team led by Sam Hanash at the MD Anderson Cancer Center
has demonstrated how the levels of CEA, CA-125, and Cyfra (all part of our MCED) can help determine whether a pulmonary nodule found
on a low-dose CT scan is likely benign or malignant. Ostrin, E. J., et al. (2021). “Contribution of a Blood-Based Protein
Biomarker Panel to the Classification of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules.” Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 16(2), 228–236.
Additionally, a meta-analysis concluded that the addition of AFP to ultrasound significantly increases sensitivity for the early detection
of liver cancer. Tzartzeva K, et al. (2018) “Surveillance Imaging and Alpha Fetoprotein for Early Detection of Hepatocellular
Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology.” 154(6):1706-1718.e1.

Advisory
Expertise. Unlike novel ctDNA targets, PTMs have been used clinically and in research studies for decades. This allows us to offer
expert medical consultants who have vast experience in using these biomarkers over many years to help advise patients and their doctors.
For example, our Medical Director Sean Wang, MD has over a decade of experience evaluating thousands of PTM screening reports in Taiwan.

The
OneTest Machine Learning Algorithm

OneTest
is built around the installed base of existing FDA approved tumor marker detection kits which run on automated instruments available
from companies like Roche Diagnostics, Abbott Diagnostics, Siemens Diagnostics, and others. In the U.S., approval for most of these kits,
except PSA, is for monitoring of disease recurrence, not screening. While we are using these approved kits in an off-label manner, this
practice is permitted under the laboratory-developed test CLIA framework. One advantage to using these kits is that the analytical performance
of these kits has been fully vetted by regulatory authorities ensuring the accuracy of individual marker value results. Furthermore,
these tests and instruments are used in thousands of clinical testing labs worldwide, thereby permitting us to obtain data from around
the world. Throughout East Asia in particular, millions of individuals have their tumor antigen levels tested each year at physical examination
or health checkup centers. In many cases these tumor markers are tested using the same kits and instrumentation that we use in our CLIA
laboratory. This has permitted us to develop machine learning algorithms based on historical outcome data from cancer registries that
would otherwise require long and expensive prospective clinical trials if novel biomarkers are incorporated. One further advantage is
that these markers are known and are meaningful to clinicians and specifically to oncologists. While their use in an MCED test is novel
and proprietary, the individual marker values are always listed as a part of the OneTest standard report, and these values can help healthcare
professionals to better guide follow-up testing and year-over-year monitoring.

9

In
short, our unique technical approach involves the following three elements: (i) obtain “real-world” data from tens of
thousands of apparently healthy individuals (i.e. no apparent signs of symptoms of cancer when tested) who are screened for cancer using
blood tests that are routine in certain parts of the world (e.g. East Asia), (ii) use this data to build machine learning algorithms
that improve the accuracy of those tests by integrating cancer outcomes and clinical factors (age, gender, etc.), and (iii) introduce
those tests and algorithms worldwide, even in parts of the world where this testing approach is less common (e.g. North America), while
examining variability across patient populations.

AI
and machine learning are expected to transform healthcare by helping physicians diagnose and treat patients with greater accuracy and
precision. As we continue to collect reliable outcome data (i.e., whether cancer was diagnosed) from individuals tested with the OneTest
biomarkers (either from our customers or from research collaborators), our ability to leverage the latest and most powerful forms of
machine learning will increase.

We
have two issued U.S. patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,621,080 issued April 4, 2023, and U.S. Patent No. 12,051,509 issued July 30,
2024, titled “Methods and Machine Learning Systems for Predicting the Likelihood or Risk of Having Cancer” covering OneTest.
Similar claim scope was granted in China on March 5, 2024. Additionally, on February 6, 2024, we were granted a patent in Japan
titled “Cancer Classifier Models, Machine Learning and Methods of Use.” Our inventors were among the first to apply
machine learning and AI to prospective outcome data from thousands of persons tested with protein tumor markers to predict a newly tested
individual’s likelihood of having cancer. We expect to continue to build out our patent estate in this arena.

MCED
Research, Development and Product Improvements

In
October 2023, we introduced a “premium” version of OneTest at a higher price point. In connection with the development of
OneTest Premium, in August 2022, we executed a technology license and access agreement with Korean-based BioInfra. BioInfra commercializes
an MCED in Korea primarily based on the levels of tumor antigens, such as CEA, CA-125, etc. However, their panel also includes several
inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein, Transthyretin, Beta-2-Microglobulin, etc., that BioInfra has demonstrated to result
in improved accuracy. This data is reported in the peer-reviewed journal article “Diagnostic value of combining tumor and inflammatory
biomarkers in detecting common cancers in Korea,” Clinica Chimica Acta 516 (2021) 169–178. The license covers software,
algorithms, and know-how, but no U.S. patents were or need to be licensed to us from BioInfra.

Under
the terms of our agreement with BioInfra, we have the exclusive right to commercialize BioInfra’s test panel and algorithm in the
United States, having paid the requisite up-front license fee of $300,000, which amount included $150,000 of pre-paid royalty credits,
and commenced bridging studies to validate those algorithms on a Western population. In addition, we have agreed to pay per-test royalty
fees in the range of $12-$25 per test for sales of our products using BioInfra’s technology. Our agreement with BioInfra is for
a term of three (3) years and may be extended for an additional three (3) years if certain minimum royalties are met or if we conduct,
or arrange for another party to conduct, a prospective clinical trial in the U.S. (we believe that the blinded validation study we conducted
in 2024 with the NCI using prospectively collected blood specimens meets the criteria for a three year extension, but the agreement has
not yet been formally extended). As of December 31, 2025, we have not paid any royalties under this agreement, other than the $150,000
of pre-paid royalty credits, which have not yet been exhausted.

OneTest
for Longevity

The
Problem

According
to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, chronic diseases are the leading cause of premature death in America,
responsible for eight out of the ten most common causes of mortality. These diseases, including cancer, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular
ailments, and dementia, are closely linked to chronic inflammation. A significant contributor to this inflammation is the consumption
of processed foods, which are often high in sugars, unhealthy fats, and additives. We believe that new tools to measure and track chronic
inflammation to inform and encourage better food and lifestyle choices are urgently needed.

10

Our
Solution

In
February 2026, we introduced and began promoting OneTest for Longevity, an AI powered blood test to measure and track biomarkers associated
with chronic inflammation which, according to the CDC, is associated with 8 of 10 leading causes of death in America. We expect to maintain
the Longevity test brand when marketing directly to consumers but will use OneTest for Workplace Wellness when marketing to self-insured
employers (although we might also adopt other names when offering the test in conjunction with particular pharmaceuticals or medical
devices.) The test offers specific and personalized diet and exercise changes proven to lower inflammation associated biomarker levels
and the associated risk of type 2 diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, mental health, and diseases associated with aging.

For
this product, we are partnering with James R. Hébert, Ph.D. and his colleagues from the University of South Carolina. Hébert,
a nutritional epidemiologist for over 30 years, is the author of Diet, Inflammation, and Health and the developer of the Dietary
Inflammatory Index, or the DII, a numerical score that assesses a diet for its effect on several biomarkers linked to inflammation. The
DII has been utilized in over 1,300 peer reviewed studies and validated in studies involving over 187,000 subjects. An AI avatar of Dr.
Hébert is being developed, which is intended to permit users of this test to ask questions about improving their diet to lower
levels of inflammation and improve health outcomes. Since he is an author of hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, this offers a corpus
of published work which can be a rich training and reference dataset to train AI algorithms and create an authentic and scientifically
accurate avatar for purposes of Q&A.

On
February 14, 2025, we obtained exclusive rights to utilize, incorporate and report the DII score together with inflammatory biomarkers
measured in a lab. Specifically, pursuant to a license agreement that we entered into with Connecting Health Innovations, or CHI, on
February 14, 2025, we were granted an exclusive license in North America for the data, algorithms, programs, software and intellectual
property rights developed by Dr. Hébert or others employed by or under contract with CHI for which CHI has intellectual property
rights that calculates or displays, for individuals who inflammatory biomarker levels have been measured, (i) a numerical score associated
with chronic inflammation that is calculated based on the biomarker levels, and (ii) specific dietary changes that can be made to lower
inflammatory biomarker levels and associated risk for multiple chronic diseases. The license is limited to use in connection with clinical
laboratory tests for the levels of biomarkers of inflammation and does not include stand-alone portals, websites, apps, or software that
are not integrated or marketed with a clinical laboratory test. The license covers software, algorithms and know-how, but no patents
were included. In exchange for the license, we agreed to pay CHI (i) a license fee of $30,000 payable within ten (10) business days of
incorporation of the licensed subject matter into our laboratory information statement and (ii) royalties in the amount of ten percent
(10%) of net sales of OneTest for Longevity. The term of the license is for three (3) years and may be terminated by us upon thirty (30)
days’ notice; provided that either party may terminate the license immediately in the event of a material breach if such breach
is not cured within thirty (30) days of written notice thereof. As of December 31, 2025, we have paid the license fee of $30,000, but
no royalites have been paid.

Below
is a sample lab report that we expect to provide.

11

The
Longevity test will be marketed directly to consumers—including through major supermarket chains beginning with Giant Foods, the
largest supermarket chain in the Washington Metro region, through which we already offer OneTest for Cancer. It will also be marketed
to self-insured employers under the brand name OneTest for Workplace Wellness.

In
addition to direct marketing, we will also seek strategic partnerships with developers of drugs and medical devices that treat various
chronic diseases. The effectiveness of many of these drugs may be enhanced for those patients who succeed in lowering their inflammatory
biomarker levels over time through evidence-based diet and lifestyle improvements such as those we offer with the Longevity program.
On March 18, 2026, we entered our first such arrangement through an exclusive U.S. license agreement with ROKIT Healthcare of Korea,
or ROKIT. The license grants us the right to integrate ROKIT’s proprietary chronic kidney disease prediction algorithm into our
Longevity test platform. Under the agreement, ROKIT agreed to reimburse us for one-third of mutually agreed sales and marketing expenses
in exchange for a running royalty to ROKIT on net sales of the combined product. The companies also anticipate negotiating a separate
agreement under which ROKIT may receive exclusive rights to commercialize our Longevity platform in Korea and potentially other East
Asian markets. Clinical evidence suggests that patients with lower systemic inflammation, as measured by biomarkers such as CRP and IL-6,
tend to experience more favorable biological responses to regenerative therapies such as ROKIT’s 3-D bio-printed tissue patches
for burns, chronic kidney disease and heart failure.

In
addition to providing biomarker levels and specific dietary recommendations, we also plan to offer electronic coupons for discounts for
those suggested healthy food items. This has the dual benefit of motivating consumers to make better food selections while providing
an ancillary revenue stream for both us and the participating supermarket (food manufacturers commonly remunerate distributors of redeemed
coupons).

Key
Competitive Advantages

Longevity
tests on the market, such as those that measure telomere length or assess dozens of biomarkers or genetic mutations, tend to be expensive
and rarely provide simple to understand, evidence based, practical and specific guidance for lifestyle changes proven to improve lifespan
and health span. Microbiome testing has a further disadvantage in that it requires collecting stool specimens, which is unpopular with
many consumers. Many of the labs that offer these tests also promote and sell dietary supplements, the safety and efficacy of which is
often questionable.

We
believe that OneTest for Longevity fills a compelling unmet need for an affordable, easily accessible test with actionable, evidence-based
recommendations to reduce inflammation and the risk of most major chronic diseases. Our exclusive access to the DII for use with clinical
lab test reporting, a unique food-frequency questionnaire, as well as the AI avatar from the developer of the DII, provides another level
of distinctiveness.

Clinical
Laboratory Innovation Accelerator (CLIAx)

To
increase our menu of innovative tests faster and at a lower cost and risk than through internal development, in 2021 we established our
CLIAx, which permits diagnostics start-up companies from around the world to launch their laboratory developed tests in our CLIA licensed
laboratory using shared equipment and laboratory personnel. To date, we have enrolled the first company in our CLIAx, Minomic International,
or Minomic, and helped it validate and launch its blood test to help determine whether PSA levels should be followed up with a biopsy.
Our CLIAx, which we believe to be the first such shared CLIA laboratory facility in the U.S., reduces the costs and expense for start-up
companies to launch their novel tests in the American market while providing us with sales and marketing rights to additional products.
In 2022, it earned an “Honorable Mention” in Fast Company magazine’s list of “World Changing Ideas”.

12

In
July 2021, we entered a lab services and marketing agreement with Minomic under which its testing technology and reagents were transferred
to our CLIA lab, installed, and validated under CLIA regulations. Under the agreement, Minomic maintains its ownership of all intellectual
property. Minomic compensates us on a “cost plus” basis (i.e., our fully burdened costs for labor, materials, space and testing
analyzers plus a 10% profit). Furthermore, we have the right, but not the obligation, to help market their test with a 25% commission.
We have not yet opted to promote the Minomic test since it does not target our typical consumer base. However, we believe this framework
will be apt for other lab tests that address the early detection, disease prevention and wellness market. The agreement with Minomic
is for a term of three years and may be terminated by either party upon 30 days’ written notice if there has been a material breach
of the agreement that has not been cured with 60 days of notice of such breach. Either party may also terminate the agreement in the
event of insolvency, bankruptcy, assignment for the benefit of creditors of the other party or an admission of the party’s inability
to pay its debts as they become due. While this agreement expired in July 2024, we continue to operate under the terms of the agreement
although we have not promoted the Minomic test.

We
plan to expand our capacity associated with our CLIAx. This would enable us to invest in, acquire, or transact with companies or academic
medical centers that have tests that could add to our menu or technologies, products, testing components or intellectual property that
strengthen our core business. We have identified a few companies that could be candidates for this CLIAx fund, but have no agreements,
or letters of intent with any of them. Thus, there is no guarantee that we can identify or reach agreement in the near term with any
such companies to meaningfully contribute to inorganic growth.

Field
Tests for Screening Suspicious Powders

We
have a longstanding business that makes and sells a proprietary test kit for screening suspicious powders called BioCheck. These kits
are widely used by fire departments and other emergency responders to quickly screen unknown suspicious powders for compounds such as
ricin, anthrax, and other bioweapon agents and to identify false alarms in minutes at the site of a suspected bioterror threat. The powder
screening kit works by quickly identifying the presence or absence of protein, a biomolecule found in all living materials. It therefore
provides a rapid screen for the possible presence of multiple bio-terrorism agents while ruling out most of the ordinary substances that
citizens have frequently feared to be possible bio-agents of terror. Such ordinary substances include, for example, talc, ceiling tile
dust, powdered sugar, etc., none of which are expected to contain detectable levels of protein. Though currently a small part of our
revenue stream, this legacy business generates positive cash flow and provides leads and introductions for our MCED test due to overlapping
fire department customers.

Lab Facility

We
operate a high-complexity CLIA-licensed clinical laboratory facility where our lab tests are performed at our Gaithersburg facility.
This clinical lab became accredited by CAP in 2022. Our CLIA lab is currently equipped with immunodiagnostic, clinic chemistry, and molecular
(PCR) analyzers, extractors, and liquid-handling robots. CAP and CLIA regulations establish standards for proficiency testing, facility
administration, general laboratory systems, preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic systems, personnel qualifications and responsibilities,
quality control, quality assessment, and specific cytology provisions for labs performing moderate to high complexity tests. Our laboratory
is inspected biennially as part of its ongoing certification under the CLIA.

13

Supply
Chain

For
both OneTest for Cancer and OneTest for Longevity, we rely on a supply chain through Roche Diagnostics IVD kits for Cobas E411, with
all reagents also available on other immunoassay platforms offered by major companies such as Abbott, Beckman, Siemens, and ThermoFisher
(except for Cyfra and IL-6). Cyfra and IL-6 are only available in the United States on our current Roche equipment; however, as an alternative
we could also source this assay on a Luminex system and various ELISA assay systems.

In
addition to our OneTest, we also rely on a supply chain for general chemistry markers. Currently, these markers are run on Abbott Alinity
C, but they are available through all major manufacturers, including Roche.

We
have established reagent contracts with Roche and Abbott that guarantee pricing for all immunoassay and chemistry markers currently used
in our diagnostic test panels. These contracts ensure that we can continue to provide our customers with high-quality diagnostic tests
at predictable pricing. Additionally, these contracts provide us with supply chain stability and allow us to manage cost fluctuations
associated with reagent pricing.

We
depend on our suppliers and contract manufacturers to provide us and our customers with materials in a timely manner that meets our and
their quality, quantity, and cost requirements. We have initiated a second source qualification process for most of these critical components,
but we may not be successful in securing second sourcing for all of them on a timely basis. Moreover, while we are confident that other
suppliers could meet our quality, quantity and cost requirements, the time required to transition to a new supplier could have negative
impact on our ability to perform these tests until an alternative supplier could be validated. Our supply chain for OneTest is critical
to our ability to deliver high-quality diagnostic tests to our customers.

Overall,
we remain committed to building strong relationships with our suppliers and contract manufacturers to ensure that our supply chain for
all our diagnostic tests is reliable, resilient, and able to meet the needs of our customers. We continuously monitor and improve our
supply chain processes to minimize the risk of disruptions and ensure that we can provide high-quality diagnostic tests to our customers
when they need them.

Please
see Item 1A “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry” for a description of the risks related
to our supplier relationships.

Sales
and Marketing Strategy

OneTest
for Cancer

Sales
of OneTest for Cancer have increased significantly in recent years, from $323,414 in 2022 to $1,803,707 in 2025. We utilize Business
to Business (B2B) and Direct to Consumer (D2C) selling strategies to reach our customer base. For Employers, the largest subgroup is
fire departments due to the proven higher cancer incidences in that population. Several states and at least one federal agency provide
grants to reimburse fire departments for our test. Iraq war veterans are another growing customer segment, and our largest order in 2025
was from an organization supporting that community. In 2025, that organization used OneTest for Cancer to screen about 1,000 veterans
and has informed us that at least 18 confirmed cancers were identified to date; many believed to be at earlier stages.

Occupational
health is our largest physician specialty group ordering our tests. Penetration of this large occupational health market will require
significant business-to-business sales and marketing campaigns as well as consumer-initiated test campaigns that must be coupled with
convenient access to phlebotomy services and telemedicine practitioners to provide guidance on the test and its results. Retail (walk-in)
clinics such as urgent care centers and pharmacy chains present the best opportunities to grow the consumer-initiated test market for
OneTest.

We
currently have engagements in place with over 1,000 retail clinics located throughout the U.S., mostly urgent care centers, to conduct
blood draws for OneTest products and include over 200 locations of AnyLabTestNow. These clinics, coupled with a dedicated telemedicine
service, have made it practical for us to initiate a consumer-initiated test campaign. In the future we expect to offer capillary collection
options at retail venues and at home.

Furthermore,
on January 6, 2025, we entered into a participation agreement and an amended and restated statement of work No. 2. with Ahold Delhaize
USA Services LLC, an affiliate of Giant of Maryland, LLC, or Giant Food, the largest supermarket chain in the Washington, D.C. region.
The participation agreement provides that we shall provide certain services as set forth in one or more statements of work. Pursuant
to the amended and restated statement of work No. 2, we agreed to provide OneTest Standard and OneTest Premium testing to Giant Food
customers at certain participating locations. We agreed to pay Giant Food $35 per individual participant. The participation agreement
is for a term of three (3) months and will be reassessed for renewal for additional three (3) month terms on each anniversary of the
effective date. Either party may terminate the participation agreement upon thirty (30) days’ written notice.

14

A
new statement of work No. 3 is being finalized that is focused on offering our Longevity test at certain Giant Food supermarkets. For
this product, consumers will be able to purchase in stores a kit for at-home, self-collection of capillary blood specimens. We anticipate
that consumers of the Longevity test will receive discounts on nutritious groceries through Giant’s Loyalty Rewards App.

Several
states are beginning to create large funds to reimburse their fire departments for multi-cancer screening tests. For example, New Hampshire’s
program provides $5 million in funding over two years and Maryland increased their grant program for multi-cancer screening
tests to $600,000 for their fiscal year beginning July 2025 from $400,000 in the prior year (typically, more than half of Maryland grants
go to fire departments who elect to use our MCED). We expect more states to provide this type of reimbursement over the coming years.
Additionally, in February 2025, the FIRE Cancer Act was reintroduced in Congress to provide $700 million in federal funding
(through FEMA) for MCED testing.

As
previously noted, on February 3, 2026, the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Coverage Act was signed into law. This
law creates a pathway for Medicare coverage of MCEDs beginning in 2028. As discussed in the sections that follow, we intend to pursue
Medicare coverage for our MCED as we believe it offers compelling advantages over competing tests.

OneTest
for Longevity

We
believe that nearly all Americans, from children through seniors, could benefit from OneTest for Longevity. This product clearly
aligns with the “Make America Healthy Again” initiatives of the new Administration as it provides a unique and innovative
tracking tool to encourage healthier eating to combat chronic diseases. On February 13, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order
14212 “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission.” It noted in relevant part, that
“[n]inety percent of the Nation’s $4.5 trillion in annual healthcare expenditures is for people with chronic and mental health
conditions…To fully address the growing health crisis in America, we must re-direct our national focus, in the public and private
sectors towards drastically lowering chronic disease rates…This includes fresh thinking on nutrition, physical activity,
healthy lifestyles, over reliance on medication and treatments…[A]gencies shall ensure the…flexibility for health
insurance coverage to provide benefits that support beneficial lifestyle changes and disease prevention…The Commission shall
submit to the President a Make our Children Healthy Again Assessment, which shall…assess the threat that certain food ingredients…pose
to children with respect to chronic inflammation and identify and report on the best practices for preventing childhood health
issues, including proper nutrition and the promotion of healthy lifestyles.” (Emphasis added)

In
recent years, millions of Americans have begun taking GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Trulicity, and newer oral versions
are in development. Our new blood test that tracks inflammatory biomarkers could be highly relevant for these patients in several ways:

●Obesity
and diabetes are inflammatory states: Adipose tissue secretes cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α,
CRP) that drive systemic inflammation, worsening insulin resistance and vascular risk.

●GLP1
agonists reduce inflammation indirectly: By promoting weight loss, improving glycemic
control, and possibly exerting direct anti-inflammatory effects on vascular endothelium,
GLP-1 drugs reduce inflammation directly.

●Residual
risk remains: Even with weight loss and glucose improvement, some patients still have
elevated inflammatory biomarkers — a signal of ongoing cardiovascular risk.

In
addition to direct marketing, we will also seek to partner with developers of drugs and medical devices that treat various chronic diseases.
The effectiveness of many of these drugs may be enhanced for those patients who succeed in lowering their inflammatory biomarker levels
over time through evidence-based diet and lifestyle improvements such as those we offer with the Longevity program. Most notably, for
those on GLP1 drugs, a blood test tracking chronic inflammation biomarkers could provide a new layer of insight into cardiovascular risk
reduction. It would show whether therapy is not only lowering weight and glucose but also calming down the inflammatory processes that
drive heart disease — helping clinicians personalize care and patients understand their progress more fully.

15

As
discussed above, in March 2026, we entered our first agreement with a therapeutics company through an exclusive U.S. license agreement
with ROKIT. Patients with lower systemic inflammation, as measured by biomarkers in our Longevity test, may respond more favorably and
durably to ROKIT’s 3-D bio-printed tissue patches for burns, chronic kidney disease and heart failure. In addition to helping defray
up to one-third of our sales and marketing expenses for the Longevity test, the ROKIT agreement might offer a precedent for partnering
with other biotech and medtech companies to create companion diagnostics opportunities. ROKIT might also become a marking and distribution
channel for us in Korea and perhaps other counties in East Asia.

Due
to its broad market, we will utilize general advertising, both digital and traditional, to market OneTest for Longevity. We also plan
to leverage our channel partnership with Giant Food to market to their customers. If the pilot with Giant is successful, we intend to
expand to other national supermarket chains.

Considering
both the profound change in public policy described above, coupled with the growing popularity of new weight-loss drugs, we are hopeful
that reimbursement or other government backed incentives will be forthcoming. In the meantime, we believe that offering this test for
around $189 (with subscription discounts of around $39 per month for four quarterly tests per year) coupled with easy, pain-free capillary
blood collection accessible at home or local pharmacies will be met with widespread adoption.

Competition

Because
of the substantial unmet medical need worldwide, many companies (and associated academic entities) are actively seeking to develop and
commercialize tests of various types to detect cancer early, when it can be treated most effectively. Current approaches include in-vivo
radiographic imaging as well as in-vitro tests using diverse bodily tissues and fluids including blood (serum or whole blood),
urine, saliva, stool, sputum, and exhaled breath.

In
the U.S., we know of no MCED blood tests that large numbers of Americans routinely utilize. Furthermore, there do not appear to currently
be any companies in the U.S. that have adopted our approach of testing a panel of tumor antigens together with a machine learning algorithm.
However, there is significant and growing competition in the MCED space with most tests using next-generation sequencing to analyze ctDNA.
Most notably, Grail Inc., which was acquired by Illumina for $8 billion in 2020, introduced its Galleri test in the second quarter of
2021 at a price of $949. Additionally, Thrive, Inc. was acquired by Exact Sciences for $2 billion, but they have not publicly announced
when they plan to launch their test CancerGuard MCED. These tests may present both competitive threats but also opportunities for OneTest.
The fact that our test measures well known biomarkers creates several important competitive advantages. Our lower cost OneTest Standard
with a list price of under $200 could be followed up with more expensive ctDNA tests and/or imaging for those individuals with high biomarkers
levels or a high algorithm score.

In
East Asia, where such biomarker tests are commonly offered as part of annual health check-ups, we are unaware of any widely used algorithms
of the type we have developed, namely an algorithm built with real-world data from a large screening population with known cancer outcomes.
However, there are many emerging companies seeking to use “liquid biopsy” and “next-gen sequencing” for pan-cancer
testing. Furthermore, many companies are actively utilizing AI and machine learning to improve health outcomes, and at least some of
those companies are likely seeking to use these techniques to improve cancer screening blood tests.

Regarding
our longevity test, we are unaware of any labs offering a panel of inflammatory biomarkers together with specific dietary guidance directly
linked to the biomarker levels. Some labs offer vague and generalized suggestions such as “eat more fruits and vegetables”
but we will offer specific, evidence-based, quantitative guidance on how to lower CRP and IL-6 levels and what that yields in terms of
improving lifespan and health outcomes.

Growth
Strategies and Path to Profitability

We
will strive to increase stockholder value by pursuing the following growth strategies:

●Exploit
our compelling advantage of at-home and retail collections. We believe that COVID-19
testing caused a paradigm shift in the way Americans seek access to testing. Previously,
most testing was done at doctor’s offices and at specialty patient service centers
maintained by the large national lab chains. During the pandemic, testing was conducted at
retail establishments and at home. OneTest for Cancer utilizes small volume, capillary collected
blood specimens that can easily be accessed at home and at retail venues such as pharmacies,
health clubs, etc. This is a big advantage over most known competitors which need to utilize
traditional venipuncture to obtain sufficient blood volumes to permit DNA sequencing. Requiring
an in-person visit to a specimen collection site is a potential barrier for a person who
needs testing. Our at-home specimen collection option may help eliminate these barriers.
OneTest for Longevity also can utilize capillary collection. To date, we have demonstrated
that this collection approach works well both at home and in retail environments (we are
now offering our tests at pharmacies within Giant Food, the largest supermarket chain in
the Washington, D.C. area). We also have a telemedicine provider available to authorize the
test and be available to consult with the patient in the event of a high-risk score. We plan
to expand direct-to-consumer marketing and build additional retail channel partnerships (supermarkets,
pharmacies, health clubs, etc.) at which blood collection is not yet commonplace.

16

●Strategic
partnerships and cooperative advertising. To facilitate scale while mitigating expenses,
we have initiated an ambitious plan of marketing alliances and partnerships with an array
of other companies, large and small, including suppliers, other clinical labs, and organizations
that offer wellness and screening tests. In many cases we seek to introduce the cooperative
advertising model where marketing expenses are shared pro rata based on revenue allotments.

●Leverage
trending federal health initiatives. As stated, the Make America Healthy Again campaign
of the Trump Administration, which is dedicated to reducing chronic disease through healthier
diet, is expected to create numerous opportunities for OneTest for Longevity. We will closely
follow and seek to make recommendations to and engage with the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, or HHS, and its constituent agencies throughout 2026 to identify opportunities
for government contracts, research grants, and other forms of support.

●Targeting
higher-risk populations. We already target firefighters, due to their proven higher
incidence and mortality rates for several types of cancer. Over 200 fire departments are
OneTest customers to date, as are thousands of individual firefighters, and we expect to
expand that number to over 2,500 fire departments, roughly 10% of all departments in the
U.S. Additionally, in 2025 we sold over 1,005 tests to military veterans who served in Iraq
or Afghanistan as it is believed that they were exposed to cancer causing toxins during their
deployments. We will continue to explore other high-risk populations to target our tests.

●Strategic
investments, acquisitions, and transactions. Utilizing our CLIAx as a platform, we
plan to enter technology licensing and marketing agreements with companies that have intellectual
property that improve our current tests or marketable tests that can be offered to our customers.
In some cases, we hope to be positioned to make equity investments or acquisitions with one
or more of these companies.

Intellectual
Property

The
following table summarizes our patent portfolio. All of these patents and patent applications are owned by us.

Description

Serial
No./Patent No.

Jurisdiction

Projected
Expiry

Methods,
Systems, Algorithms and AI for the Early Detection of Multi-Cancer and Lung Cancer

1
Algorithm
for assessing the likelihood a patient has lung cancer

USPN
9,753,043 USPN 10,156,575 USPN 11,733,249

US
and CA

2032

2
Methods for aiding in
distinguishing between benign and malignant pulmonary nodules

WO
2017/173428

US
and CN

2037

3
Algorithm for assessing
the likelihood a patient has cancer

USPN
11,621,080

US
and CN

2035-37

4
Cancer Classifier Models

PCT/US19/40075

US,
CN and JP

2039

5
Methods and algorithms
for identifying a patient for follow-up cancer diagnostic testing

WO
2021/247577

US

2041

6
Pan cancer universal algorithm

WO
2022/015700

US
and CN

2041

7
Use of multiple tumor
markers in a machine learning model for cancer detection

US
2018/0173847

US
and TW

2036

No
assurance is made that any pending patent applications within the portfolio will result in a granted patent.

To
protect our intellectual property, we rely on a combination of laws and regulations, as well as contractual restrictions. We rely on
Federal patent laws to protect our intellectual property, including our patented technology. We also rely on the protection of laws regarding
unregistered copyrights for certain content we create and trade secret laws to protect our proprietary technology and know-how. To further
protect our intellectual property, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, executive officers and directors.

17

Employees

As
of December 31, 2025, we had a total of 14 employees, including 4 full-time employees.

We
believe that we maintain a satisfactory working relationship with our employees, and we have not experienced any significant labor disputes
or any difficulty in recruiting staff for our operations. None of our employees are represented by a labor union.

Government
Regulation

The
healthcare industry, and thus our business, is subject to extensive federal, state, local and foreign regulations. Some of the pertinent
laws and regulations have not been definitively interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open
to a variety of subjective interpretations. In addition, these laws and their interpretations are subject to change.

Both
U.S. federal and state governmental agencies continue to subject the healthcare industry to intense regulatory scrutiny, including heightened
civil and criminal enforcement efforts. As indicated by work plans and reports issued by these agencies, the federal government will
continue to scrutinize, among other things, the marketing, labeling, promotion, manufacturing, and export of diagnostic healthcare products.
The federal government also has increased funding in recent years to fight healthcare fraud, and various agencies, such as the U.S. Department
of Justice, the Office of Inspector General of HHS, and state Medicaid fraud control units, are coordinating their enforcement efforts.

FDA
and CLIA

Based
on widespread industry practice, we believe that our products do not require pre-market approval from the FDA. In the U.S., our current
products are laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, regulated under the CLIA and the Maryland Department of Health. If in the future we
elect to license or distribute software as a service those products would likely be deemed to be Clinical Decisions Support Software,
or CDSS. As explained below, products in both of those categories do not require FDA pre-market approval but could become subject to
the FDA’s policy of “enforcement discretion.”

Laboratory
Developed Tests. LDTs are tests run in the laboratory of the company that developed them. With very rare exceptions, LDTs are
not regulated by the FDA but rather under a different regulatory regime called CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments), state
law and regulations, and organizations such as CAP. Our laboratory is fully certified and compliant with CLIA as a “High Complexity
Lab.” Furthermore, since 2022 our lab has been accredited by CAP.

Under
current law there is no requirement for CLIA regulated LDTs to obtain approval or clearance from the FDA prior to being marketed (outside
the context of tests used in response to a declared pandemic emergency under which the FDA has been given special statutory authorities).
In November 2016, the FDA issued a formal statement clarifying that LDTs can be marketed without pre-market approval, but that the agency
maintains “enforcement discretion” to require their approval for those LDTs that are marketed in a way that is unsafe or
could mislead or cause harm to patients. Since November 2016, such enforcement discretion has been exercised very rarely, and when it
has been exercised, the tests were not ordered by independent medical professionals. To reduce the likelihood that our tests will face
enforcement discretion by the FDA, we request that our tests be ordered by a physician who is independent of our company and that the
physician aid the patient/consumer in interpreting the test results.

On
April 29, 2024, the FDA issued a final regulation under which they would begin to regulate LDTs starting in late 2027. The rule provides
an exemption from premarket review for “currently marketed” LDTs that were “first marketed prior to the date of issuance
of the final rule.” However, on March 31, 2025, a U.S. District Court in Texas ordered that FDA’s LDT final rule be
vacated and set aside in its entirety. The FDA elected not to appeal the District Court decision. Thus, there is a consensus among
legal experts that the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate LDTs absent clear statutory authority from Congress. Heretofore bills to provide
the FDA with this authority have failed to pass and we believe that there is very little likelihood of such a bill passing in the near
future.

CDSS.
On December 13, 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, was signed into law. Among the many provisions of the Cures Act was
the exclusion of certain medical decision support software from the FDA’s jurisdiction. On December 8, 2017, the FDA issued its
first set of Draft Guidance to implement those provisions of the Cures Act relating to CDSS. Based on our reading of this Draft Guidance,
we believe that there may be aspects of our current or planned OneTest software package that would be exempt from pre-market approval.
If we elect to proceed with an independent software product in the U.S. (as we will likely do overseas), outside laboratories could run
the OneTest biomarker panels (all of the detection instruments and kits are FDA approved).

18

Operating
under the assumption that seeking FDA approval for our products is optional, but that approval could improve the adoption rates and permit
greater scale, we may seek FDA approval when test volume exceeds the capacity of our CLIA laboratory. In so doing, we will seek regulatory
counsel through a contracted firm and in conjunction with the FDA. We expect to present to the FDA real-world evidence, including data
we continue to collect from tens of thousands of individuals tested with our products in the U.S. and overseas. On August 31, 2017, the
FDA issued Guidance on the “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices.” This Guidance
provides that “in some cases, a ‘traditional’ clinical trial may be impractical or excessively challenging to conduct”
and that use of real-world data “may in some cases provide similar information with comparable or even superior characteristics
to information collected and analyzed through a traditional clinical trial.” We believe that OneTest for Cancer, given its intended
use as a “top-of-the-funnel” test to guide subjects to other diagnostic tests earlier, will fit into this category of tests
for which real-world evidence is both acceptable and appropriate to support FDA approval, which will greatly reduce the costs associated
with a regulatory filing.

Federal
and State Fraud and Abuse Laws

We
are subject to federal fraud and abuse laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or AKS, the federal prohibition against physician
self-referral, commonly known as the Stark Law, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, or EKRA, and the federal False Claims Act,
or the FCA. We are also subject to similar state and foreign fraud and abuse laws.

The
AKS prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly,
in cash or in kind, in return for or to induce such person to refer an individual, or to purchase, lease, order, arrange for, or recommend
purchasing, leasing or ordering, any item or service that may be reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program,
such as Medicare or Medicaid. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors to the AKS that provide protection
from AKS liability to arrangements that fully satisfy the applicable requirements.

EKRA
prohibits knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying remuneration, directly or indirectly, in return for the referral
of a patient to, or in exchange for an individual using the services of certain entities, including laboratories, if the services are
covered by a health care benefit program. The term “health care benefit program” is broadly defined such that EKRA extends
to referrals reimbursed by both governmental and commercial third-party payers. EKRA includes a number of statutory exceptions that provide
protection from EKRA liability if the applicable requirements are met.

The
Stark Law generally prohibits, among other things, clinical laboratories and other so-called “designated health services”
entities from billing Medicare for any designated health services when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s
immediate family, has a financial relationship, such as a direct or indirect investment interest in or compensation arrangement with
the billing entity, unless the arrangement meets an exception to the prohibition. The Stark Law also prohibits physicians from making
such referrals to a designated health services entity. There are also similar state laws that apply where Medicaid and/or commercial
payers are billed.

The
FCA imposes penalties against individuals or entities for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims
for payment to the government that are false or fraudulent, or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or
statement material to such a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing, or
concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. This statute also permits a private individual acting as a “qui
tam” whistleblower to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging violations of the FCA and to share in any monetary
recovery. FCA liability is potentially significant in the healthcare industry because the statute provides for treble damages and mandatory
penalties of $13,508 to $27,018 per false claim or statement for penalties assessed after January 30, 2023, with respect to violations
occurring after November 2, 2015.

Other
federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits, among other
things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payer knows or should know is
likely to influence the beneficiary to order or receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular provider, practitioner, or supplier,
and contracting with an individual or entity that the person knows or should know is excluded from participation in a federal health
care program. In addition, federal criminal statutes created by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA,
prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program
or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises any money or property owned by or under the control
of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

19

In
addition to these federal laws, there are often similar state anti-kickback and false claims laws that typically apply to arrangements
involving reimbursement by a state-funded Medicaid or other health care program. Often, these laws closely follow the language of their
federal law counterparts, although they do not always have the same exceptions or safe harbors. In some states, these anti-kickback laws
apply with respect to all payers, including commercial payers.

A
number of states have enacted laws that require pharmaceutical and medical device companies to monitor and report payments, gifts and
other remuneration made to physicians and other healthcare providers, and, in some states, marketing expenditures. In addition, some
state statutes impose outright bans on certain manufacturer gifts to physicians or other health care professionals. Some of these laws,
referred to as “aggregate spend” or “gift” laws, carry substantial fines if they are violated.

Efforts
to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve
substantial costs and extensive annual trainings for all of our employees and contractors. If our operations are found to be in violation
of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and
administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government-funded healthcare programs, such as
Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting
or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance
with the law, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our
business and our results of operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we do business is
found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions
from government-funded healthcare programs.

Anti-Corruption

The
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, or the FCPA, and similar international bribery laws make it unlawful for persons or entities to
make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining and maintaining business. Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions
of the FCPA prohibit any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorizing the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while
knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign
official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining
or retaining business for or with, or directing business, to any person. In addition to the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA, the
statute also contains accounting requirements designed to operate in tandem with the anti-bribery provisions. Covered companies are required
to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the company and devise and maintain an adequate
system of internal accounting controls. With our international operations through our third-party partnerships, we could incur significant
fines and penalties, as well as criminal liability, if we fail to comply with either the anti-bribery or accounting requirements of the
FCPA, or similar international bribery laws. Even an unsuccessful challenge of our compliance with these laws could cause us to incur
adverse publicity and significant legal and related costs.

Privacy
and Data Protection Laws

Numerous
federal and state laws and regulations, including HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health
Act of 2009, or HITECH, govern the collection, dissemination, security, use and confidentiality of protected health information, or PHI,
and personal information. In the course of performing our business we obtain personal information, including PHI. Laws and regulations
relating to privacy, data protection, and consumer protection are evolving and, in some cases, particularly with regard to newer laws,
may be subject to potentially differing interpretations. Under HIPAA and HITECH, the HHS issues regulations that establish uniform standards
governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and requirements for protecting the privacy and security of PHI,
used or disclosed by covered entities, or CEs, and their authorized business associates, or BAs. Because we electronically transmit health
care information, and we also provide certain services to CEs and receive PHI from them, we are at times either a CE or a BA, as defined
by HIPAA. Our subcontractors that create, receive, maintain, transmit or otherwise process PHI on our behalf are HIPAA BAs and must also
comply with HIPAA, as applicable.

20

HIPAA
and HITECH include the privacy and security rules, breach notification requirements and electronic transaction standards. The privacy
rule governs the use and disclosure of PHI, generally prohibits the use or disclosure of PHI except as permitted under the rule, and
mandates certain safeguards to protect the privacy of PHI. The privacy rule also sets forth individual rights, such as the right to access
or amend certain records containing such individual’s PHI, or to request restrictions on the use or disclosure of such individual’s
PHI. The security rule requires CEs and BAs to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronically transmitted
or stored PHI (also referred to as ePHI) by implementing administrative, physical and technical safeguards. Under HIPAA’s breach
notification rule, a CE must notify individuals, the Secretary of HHS, and in some circumstances, the media of certain breaches of unsecured
PHI or ePHI, and similar breach notification provisions apply to certain BAs under HITECH.

Penalties
for failure to comply with a requirement of HIPAA and HITECH vary depending on the number and nature of the violations and any history
of prior violations but can be significant and include civil monetary or criminal penalties. HIPAA is enforced by the HHS, Office for
Civil Rights, and HIPAA also authorizes state attorneys general to file suit on behalf of their residents for violations. Courts are
able to award damages, costs and attorneys’ fees related to violations of HIPAA in such cases. While HIPAA does not create a private
right of action allowing individuals to file suit in civil court for violations of HIPAA, its standards have been used as the basis for
duty of care cases in state civil suits such as those for negligence or recklessness in improper use, access to or disclosure of PHI.
In addition, HIPAA mandates that the Secretary of HHS conduct periodic compliance audits of HIPAA CEs, such as us, and their BAs for
compliance with HIPAA privacy and security standards and breach notification rules. It also tasks HHS with establishing a methodology
whereby harmed individuals who were the victims of breaches of unsecured PHI may receive a percentage of the civil monetary penalty paid
by the violator.

In
addition, we may be subject to state privacy, cybersecurity, and data breach notification laws, which may govern the collection, use,
disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. California, for example, has enacted the Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, which, in addition to HIPAA and HITECH, sets forth standards with which all California health care providers
must abide. Colorado has enacted the Colorado Privacy Act, and Virginia has enacted the Consumer Data Protection Act, both of which also
have standards that must be complied with that supplement Federal data protection requirements. State laws may be more stringent, broader
in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to PHI than HIPAA, and state laws may differ from each other in regard to personal
information treatment, which may complicate compliance efforts. For instance, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, became effective
on January 1, 2020 and was amended by the passage of the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, in November of 2020, which amendments
came into force on January 1, 2023. The CCPA, among other things, gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their
personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing and receive detailed information about how their personal information
is used by requiring covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers (as that term is broadly defined) and provide
such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as
well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA has been amended from
time to time, and it remains unclear what, if any, further modifications will be made to this legislation or how it will be interpreted.
Although there are certain exemptions for PHI and clinical trial data, the CCPA’s implementation standards and enforcement practices
are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future and the CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Additionally,
the CPRA imposes additional data protection obligations on companies doing business in California, including additional consumer rights
processes and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It also creates a new California data protection agency – the California
Privacy Protection Agency – specifically tasked to enforce the law, which would likely result in increased regulatory scrutiny
of California businesses in the areas of data protection and security. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and at the federal
level, and if passed, such laws may have potentially conflicting requirements that could continue to make compliance challenging and
costly.

Additionally,
the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, and state attorneys general enforce consumer protection laws that prohibit unfair and deceptive
acts and practices and create standards for the collection, use, dissemination and security of health-related and other personal information.
Claims of unfair or deceptive trade practices regarding privacy and security can lead to significant liabilities and consequences, including
regulatory investigations, penalties, fines and orders as well as civil claims, which could impact our data practices and operations
or cause reputational damage.

21

We
may also be subject to laws and regulations in foreign countries covering data privacy and other protection of health and employee information
that may add additional compliance burden and complexity. For example, in the European Economic Area, the collection and use of personal
data is governed by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR. In the United Kingdom, the GDPR has been
adopted in substantially the same form, however the UK may potentially make revisions in the coming years. The GDPR, together with national
legislation, regulations and guidelines of the European Union member states and the United Kingdom governing the processing of personal
data, impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze, store, transfer and otherwise process personal data.
European and United Kingdom data protection authorities may interpret the GDPR and national laws differently and impose additional requirements,
which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in or from the European Economic Area or United Kingdom. Guidance on implementation
and compliance practices is often updated or otherwise revised. The GDPR applies extra-territorially under certain circumstances and
imposes stringent requirements on controllers and processors of personal data, including, for example, requirements to ensure a legal
bases to process personal information, provide robust disclosures to individuals, facilitate data subject rights, provide data security
breach notifications within 72 hours after discovering a breach in certain circumstances, limit retention of personal information and
apply enhanced protections to health data and other categories of sensitive personal information. The GDPR also has requirements around
international transfers of personal data. Requirements around transfers to the United States and other jurisdictions have increased since
a July 2020 decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidated the Privacy Shield as a basis to transfer personal data
from Europe to the United States, and added requirements for reliance on Standard Contractual Clauses. Regulatory guidance on requirements
for international transfers, and other GDPR compliance matters, continues to evolve. For example, the European Commission in December
2022 announced that it was beginning the process of drafting a new adequacy decision that would ease regulatory barriers for data transfers
to the United States. However, it is widely expected that the new adequacy decision will itself face scrutiny from the Court of Justice,
underscoring that GDPR compliance is an ongoing endeavor. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR may result in fines of
up to €20 million or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of our preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher, and other
administrative penalties. To comply with the GDPR and other applicable international data protection laws and regulations, we may be
required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance, which may result in other substantial expenditures.

Cybersecurity

Our
business relies on secure and continuous processing of information and the availability of our information technology, or IT, networks
and IT resources, as well as critical IT vendors that support our technology, research and other data processing operations. While we
take steps to protect our systems and data, security incidents, data breaches, computer malware and computer hacking attacks have become
more prevalent across industries, including the life sciences sector, and may occur on our systems or those of our third-party service
providers. Unauthorized persons may in the future be able to exploit weaknesses in the security systems of our (or our third-party service
providers) IT networks and gain access to PHI and other personal information, sensitive trade secrets, or other proprietary information.
Any wrongful use or disclosure of PHI, other personal information, trade secrets or other proprietary information by us or our third-party
service providers could subject us to regulatory fines or penalties, third-party claims or otherwise could adversely affect our business
and results of operations. Although HIPAA and the regulations promulgated thereunder do not provide for a private right of action, failures
to adequately protect PHI or our IT systems could be viewed as violations of HIPAA security rules or violations of other applicable information
security laws, regulations, contractual obligations or industry standards, and could further result in costly data breach notification
obligations that negatively impact our reputation.

Moreover,
data security incidents or data breaches, as well as attacks on our IT systems, could result in operational disruptions or data loss
or corruption that could adversely impact our business and operations, resulting in substantial investment of resources to investigate,
recover and remediate and subject us to heightened regulatory scrutiny.

International
Regulations

Many
countries in which we may offer any of our diagnostic tests in the future have anti-kickback regulations prohibiting providers from offering,
paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, in order to induce business that is reimbursable under any national
health care program. In situations involving physicians employed by state-funded institutions or national healthcare agencies, violation
of the local anti-kickback law may also constitute a violation of the FCPA.

The
FCPA prohibits any United States individual, business entity or employee of a United States business entity to offer or provide, directly
or through a third party, including any potential distributors we may rely on in certain markets, anything of value to a foreign government
official with corrupt intent to influence an award or continuation of business or to gain an unfair advantage, whether or not such conduct
violates local laws. In addition, it is illegal for a company that reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC,
to have false or inaccurate books or records or to fail to maintain a system of internal accounting controls. We will also be required
to maintain accurate information and control over sales and distributors’ activities that may fall within the purview of the FCPA,
its books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions.

The
standard of intent and knowledge in anti-bribery cases is minimal. Intent and knowledge are usually inferred from that fact that bribery
took place. The accounting provisions do not require intent. Violations of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions for corporations
and other business entities are subject to a fine of up to $2 million and officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and agents are
subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and other OECD
Anti-Bribery Convention members, have similar anti-corruption regulations, such as the United Kingdom Anti-Bribery Act.

22

When
marketing our diagnostic tests outside of the United States, we may be subject to foreign regulatory requirements governing human clinical
testing, prohibitions on the import of tissue necessary for us to perform our diagnostic tests or restrictions on the export of tissue
imposed by countries outside of the United States or the import of tissue into the United States, and marketing approval. These requirements
vary by jurisdiction, differ from those in the United States and may in some cases require us to perform additional pre-clinical or clinical
testing. In many countries outside of the United States, coverage, pricing and reimbursement approvals are also required.

Market
access, sales and marketing of medical devices in non-U.S. countries are subject to foreign regulatory requirements that vary widely
from country to country. For example, in the European Economic Area, a medical device must meet the Medical Devices Directive’s/In
Vitro Medical Devices Directive’s, or MDD/IVDD, Essential Requirements or, applicable on May 26, 2021, the Medical Devices Regulation’s,
or MDR, or applicable on May 26, 2022, In Vitro Medical Devices Regulation’s, or IVDR, General Safety and Performance Requirements
which apply to it, taking into account its intended purpose as defined by the data supplied by the manufacturer on the label, in the
instructions for use or in promotional or sales materials or statements and as specified by the manufacturer in the clinical evaluation.
Before placing a medical device on the European Economic Area market, the manufacturer must draw up a declaration of conformity, certifying
that the device complies with the MDD/IVDD/MDR/IVDR, and must then affix the CE mark. For medium and high-risk devices as well as low
risk devices that are placed on the market in sterile condition, have a measuring function, or are reusable surgical instruments, the
manufacturer must obtain a CE certificate from a notified body. The notified body typically audits and examines the device’s technical
documentation, including the clinical evaluation, and the quality system for the manufacture, design and final inspection of the relevant
device before issuing a CE certificate. Following the issuance of this CE certificate, manufacturers may draw up the declaration of conformity
and affix the CE mark to the devices covered by this CE certificate.

Manufacturers
of medical devices must document in a clinical evaluation report, or CER, the evaluation of the clinical data related to the device.
The CER is part of the device’s technical file. The evaluation shall document that the applicable Essential Requirements/General
Safety and Performance Requirements are met and document the evaluation of the undesirable side-effects and the acceptability of the
benefit-risk ratio. The CER must be updated based on information from the post-market surveillance and vigilance activities related to
the device. The CER shall consist, inter alia, of analyzed clinical data collected from a clinical investigation of the device,
or the results of other studies on substantially equivalent devices. Reliance on “substantially equivalent” devices is very
restrictive and requires, inter alia, that the manufacturer has full access to the technical documentation of the equivalent device
on an ongoing basis and, if the “equivalent device” is not its own, that the manufacture has in place a contract with the
manufacturer of the “equivalent device.”

Environmental,
Health and Safety Regulations

We
are subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign environmental, health and safety laws and regulations and permitting and licensing
requirements. Such laws include those governing laboratory practices, the generation, storage, use, manufacture, handling, transportation,
treatment, remediation, release and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials and wastes and worker health and safety. Our operations
involve the generation, use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, and the risk of injury, contamination or non-compliance with
environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or permitting or licensing requirements cannot be eliminated. Compliance with environmental
laws and regulations has not had a material effect on our capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position.