Test and Demonstration of Multimodal Data Approaches for Personalised Medicine (“MultiPMData2026”)

Beneficiary & submission

All information and documents concerning the Research, Innovation and Technology Call (RITC) 2026, including the call text outlining the aims and scope of the call, as well as the Guidelines for Applicants document, the pre-proposal form, etc. can be found here: https://www.eppermed.eu/funding-projects/calls/ritc2026/. Submission: There will be a two-step submission and evaluation procedure for joint applications consisting of a pre-proposal and a full proposal stage. In both stages, one joint proposal (in English) shall be prepared by the partners of a joint transnational consortium, and must be submitted by only one spokesperson, the coordinator, by uploading it on the electronic submission system: https://ptoutline.eu/app/EPPERMEDRITC2026 Research project consortia who intend to submit a transnational proposal should register at https://ptoutline.eu/app/EPPERMEDRITC2026, click on “sign up” and follow the further instructions. Please complete the different sections as soon as possible. Joint proposals consist of two parts: 1) The pre-proposal and full proposal templates, provided in word format and allowing applicants to present mainly the description of the planned work, and 2) the electronic submission tool to provide particularly individual partner information and financial plans. Both parts should be completed jointly by all applying consortium partners and need to be started in due time. Please use the pre-proposal templates provided on the EP PerMed website (https://www.eppermed.eu/funding-projects/calls/ritc2026/) and the full proposal form sent to coordinators by the Joint Call Secretariat (JCS) in the second stage. The proposals must be written in English, must follow the template form in terms of overall size and section page and character limits, and must strictly adhere to the “Guidelines for Applicants”. Only proposals using the official templates will be accepted. Deadline to submit pre-proposals: 12 January 2026 (14:00, CET) The decision on which applicants are selected to submit a full proposal will be communicated to applicants solely by the JCS around 19 March, 2026. The JCS will send a full proposal application template to the coordinators of those research proposals invited to the full proposal stage. Any fundamental changes between the pre- and full proposal concerning the composition of the consortium, project objectives or requested budget must be communicated to the JCS and to the regional/national funding organisations. In exceptional cases, these changes may be accepted if detailed justification is provided and if they are accepted by the Call Steering Committee (CSC). Deadline to submit full proposals: 27 April 2026 (14:00, CEST) After these deadlines, the electronic submission system will not accept proposals and it will not be possible to amend the proposal or to add further documents. In case of inconsistencies between the information registered in the online submission tool and the information included in the PDF of the application form, the information registered in the submission tool shall prevail. Eligibility criteria: Only transnational projects will be funded. Each consortium must involve at least three partners from three different EU Member States or Associated Countries whose funding organisations participate in the call (see also call text). Each of these partners must be eligible and request funding from the respective funding organisation. The legal entities must be independent of each other. At least one project partner must represent an enterprise (SME or industry), and at least one additional partner must be a clinical partner, adhering to categories A and B (more indications in “B. Funding recipients” of section 7 of the call text). The project coordinator (i.e. the principal investigator and the applicant’s organisation) must be eligible to be funded by their regional/national participating funding organisation. The project coordinator (i.e. the principal investigator and applicant’s organisation) cannot be changed during the application process. Consortium composition: In both, the pre- and full proposal stage, no more than three partners from the same country, including partners on own funding, are allowed. For some funding organisations, the maximum number of eligible partners who can be funded in one project is limited and may be fewer than three (see also “Guidelines for Applicants” for individual funding regulations). In the pre-proposal phase, the maximum number of partners in a consortium is seven. Widening concept: Consortia are allowed to include in the full proposal phase an additional project partner that is eligible to receive funding from a funding organisation that is underrepresented in the second stage of the call and that agrees to participate in the widening option. A list of underrepresented regions/countries will be provided to coordinators invited to submit full proposals. No more than two partners on own funds is allowed (partners on own funds must be additional to the minimum three partners eligible and requesting funding; more indications in “B. Funding recipients” of section 7 of the call text). Exception: To facilitate the integration of organisations representing patients or citizens in consortia, they can be added as additional partners at the pre-proposal stage or full proposal stage either on own funds or by applying for funding, if eligible, from EP PerMed (see page 10 of the call text) or the respective funding organisations. The consortia must follow all above-mentioned rules regarding the consortia composition but without counting the patient/citizen representing organisations. The following rule must be respected: Within one consortium, no more than three partners can request funding from the same funding organisation, including patient/citizen organisations. For some funding organisations, the maximum number of eligible partners who can be funded in one project is limited and may be fewer than three. Funding recipients: Joint research proposals may be submitted by applicants belonging to an entity according to the following categories (subject to regional/national funding regulations; see “Guidelines for Applicants”): A. Enterprise (for-profit) of all sizes, e.g. SME (small and medium-sized enterprises) and industry. B. Clinical partner, public or private health sector represented by research teams or clinicians (e.g. medical doctors, nurses or pharmacists) working in hospitals/public health or other healthcare settings and health organisations). C. Academia, research teams working in universities, other higher education institutions or public or private research institutes. D. Private non-profit partners, e.g. foundations, associations or non-governmental organisations. Consortia submitting applications to this call must include partners from categories A) and B), and are strongly encouraged to also include partners from categories C) and D) in line with the crosscutting/multidisciplinary nature of the call, where the aim is to include partners at different levels in the value chain. The number of participants, the category of partner organisations and their research contribution should be appropriate to the aims of the call (section 5 of the call text), the aims of the research project and should be reasonably balanced in terms of international participation (the different points are reflected in the three evaluation criteria). Each collaborative project should represent the critical mass necessary to achieve the ambitious scientific goals and should clearly demonstrate the added value for the cooperation. Partners on own funds - Organisations or teams not eligible for funding in this joint transnational call, e.g. from countries not having a funding organisation participating in this call or not fundable according to regional/national regulations of the participating funding organisations, may participate if they are able to secure their own funds. They are treated as full partners and must be included in the pre- and full proposal templates as such. Please note that no more than two partners on own funds are allowed and the consortium must contain at least three partners eligible for funding. A letter of commitment must be included as an annex to the proposal, at the full proposal stage, summarising the commitment of the partner/s participating in the project with own funds and demonstrating the source of funding. If a partner is found to be ineligible by one of the funding organisations after the formal check, the entire proposal may be rejected without further review. For a definition of eligible partners, see “Guidelines for Applicants”, the regional/national regulations, and contact the concerned regional/national funding organisation. A consortium can apply for a redress procedure in the case a proposal has been rejected (see also section 11 of the call text). Financial and legal aspects: A maximum project duration of three years may be applied for in accordance with EP PerMed funding organisation regulations. The studies performed should be finalised at the latest within the third year of the funding period. Eligible costs and funding provisions may vary according to the respective funding organisation’s regulations. Project partners must refer and adhere to their own regional/national regulations and scientific remits, as detailed in the relevant regional/national announcements (see Annex II of this document and Annex III of the “Guidelines for Applicants”). Formal check and evaluation of proposals: A. Formal check and evaluation of pre-proposals The JCS will check all proposals to ensure that they meet the call’s formal criteria (see also “7. Applications, A. Eligibility Criteria” of the call text). In parallel, the JCS will forward the proposals to the regional/national funding organisations, which will perform a check for compliance with their regional/national regulations. Please note that if a proposal includes an ineligible partner, the whole proposal may be rejected, without further review. After passing the eligibility check (performed by the JCS and the participating funding agencies), pre-proposals will be sent to at least three independent reviewers for the first evaluation (see evaluation criteria outlined in the call text: “8. Formal check and evaluation of proposals, C. Evaluation criteria”). The reviewers will assess the pre-proposal and complete a written evaluation form with scores and comments for the evaluation criteria. In addition, the independent reviewers will assess whether the projects described in the pre-proposal documents fit the aim and scope of the call. The CSC members will meet to decide which pre-proposals will be invited for full proposal submission based on the reviewers’ scores and recommendations, and to ensure a reasonable balance of requested and available regional/national budgets. B. Formal check and evaluation of full proposals. Rebuttal stage The JCS will review the full proposals to ensure that they meet the call’s formal criteria and have not changed substantially from the respective pre-proposals prior to sending them to the independent reviewers. In parallel, the JCS will forward the proposals to the regional/national funding organisations, which will perform a check for compliance with their regional/national regulations. Each full proposal will be allocated to at least three independent reviewers. The reviewers will assess the full proposal and complete a written evaluation form with scores and comments for each criterion (see evaluation criteria below). Rebuttal stage: Before the Peer Review Panel (PRP) plenary meeting to discuss the full proposals, the JCS will provide the independent reviewers’ assessment (by email or other electronic means) to each project coordinator who will have the opportunity to study the assessments and to provide comments on the arguments and evaluations of the reviewers, who remain anonymous. This stage allows applicants to comment on factual errors or misunderstandings that may have been committed by the independent reviewers while assessing the proposal, and to reply to reviewers’ questions. However, issues that are not related to reviewers’ comments or questions cannot be addressed, and the work plan cannot be modified at this stage. Answers sent after the notified deadline, or not related to reviewers’ comments or questions, will be disregarded. Peer Review Panel (PRP): The independent reviewers in the PRP will discuss all proposals (and the rebuttal letters), to produce a joint assessment report for each full proposal, to be sent by the JCS to the project coordinators, and a ranking list of proposals recommended for funding. The composition of the PRP may be communicated through the EP PerMed website at the end of the entire review process. C. Evaluation criteria Pre-proposals and full proposals will be assessed according to specific evaluation criteria using a common evaluation form. A scoring system from 0 to 5 will be used to evaluate the proposal’s performance with respect to the different evaluation criteria. Scoring system: 0: Failure. The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. 1: Poor. The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2: Fair. The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. 3: Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. 4: Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. 5: Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor. Evaluation scores will be awarded for the three main criteria, 1) Excellence, 2) Impact and 3) Quality and efficiency of the implementation, each as a whole, and not separately for the different aspects listed below the criteria. The three criteria are weighted equally and the maximum total score for the three evaluation criteria that can be achieved in the remote evaluation is 15 points. The threshold for every individual criterion based on the evaluation of the three independent reviewers will be 3 (overall threshold of 9 for proposals in both steps of the evaluation process). Evaluation criteria 1. Excellence: a. Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, multidisciplinary and intersectoral approaches; b. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives and them fitting to the scope of the call, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious, and goes beyond the state-of-the-art; c. The innovative potential, efficient use of multimodal health data and the potential for the solution to reach implementation in the longer perspective; d. Clear integration in the proposal of the six enabling elements: 1) Knowledge integration; 2) Technologies, products, methods and processes; 3) Infrastructures utilisation; 4) Business/value models; 5) Policies and regulations; and 6) Organisations, behaviours and values; e. Appropriate consideration of the gender dimension and sex aspects, underrepresented populations, or specific sub-groups in research and innovation content; f. Consideration of sex aspects and underrepresented populations in research teams, if applicable; g. Quality of open science practices, if applicable, including sharing and management of research outputs (data management) and engagement of citizens, patients or patient representatives, civil society and other concerned stakeholders where appropriate. 2. Impact: a.  Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the call text, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions due to the project, also considering potential barriers and proposed mitigation measures; b. Potential impact with respect to the development, innovation and implementation of PM (e.g. clinical and other health-related applications, translatability of the proposed PM approach to practice in healthcare; elaboration on the translational aspect considering implementation or health economics research); c. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities; d. Added value of the transnational collaboration; sharing of resources (registries, diagnosis, biobanks, models, databases, diagnostic and informatics tools, etc.), platforms/ infrastructures, harmonisation of data and sharing of specific know-how. Sub-criterium 2c will be evaluated only at the full proposal evaluation stage. 3. Quality and efficiency of the project implementation: a. Quality, effectiveness including check points and room for adjustments in the work plan (including adequacy of the time schedule) and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall; b. Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. This includes appropriate expertise of partners responsible for proposed work packages (i.e. for considered enabling elements, international competitiveness of participants in the field(s) and previous work supporting the proposed study with preliminary data); c. Interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration: coherent integration of suitable project partners to successfully accomplish the proposed work, i.e. to test and demonstrate personalised medicine approaches; d. Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures to address risk assessment (i.e. critical risks to implementation and their proposed mitigation measures), innovation and intellectual property management and Responsible Research and Innovation, including ethical considerations; e. Sustainability of the research capacities initiated by the project (e.g. FAIR data management, Open Science practices). Sub-criteria 3d and 3e will be evaluated only at the full proposal evaluation stage. D. Conflicts of interest (Evaluation panel) All necessary steps will be taken by the JCS and the CSC to ensure that there is no conflict of interest concerning PRP members for those proposals assigned to them for review. The PRP members will be required to formally declare that no conflict of interest exists at any point in the evaluation process and to declare confidentiality concerning all documents and the entire review process. Any PRP member who breaches the conflict-of-interest rule will be excluded from the panel. Projects assigned to that reviewer will be assigned to another reviewer. After receiving the proposals, the independent reviewers are requested to indicate whether there is a conflict of interest with any of the researchers or research groups in the proposals for review. Reviewers will be asked to declare that they will not participate in the call, nor have any conflicting interests regarding the researchers or research groups participating in the projects that are reviewed. E. Ethical clearance - Ethics and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) evaluation It is mandatory for applicants to complete at the full proposal stage an “Ethical self-assessment” (Annex 1 of the full proposal application form). After the PRP meeting, an evaluation of Ethics and RRI aspects will take place for the full proposals which are recommended for funding by the PRP and selected for funding by the CSC, to verify alignment with ethical norms and regulations. If further clarifications are necessary, the consortium will be contacted to take respective actions or submit additional documents. The ethics experts may put forward additional conditions that need to be fulfilled by the applicants. Only those proposals approved by both the scientific evaluation and ethical assessment, complying with the central Horizon Europe and regional/national ethical requirements, will be funded. Please note: This ethical clearance process does not replace any ethical application procedures or approvals given by a dedicated Research Ethics Committee. All ethical and legal requirements necessary must be met before the research can begin. To ensure this, is the responsibility of the applicant and cannot be substituted by the EP PerMed ethical clearance process. Final decision on funding Based on the ranking list established by the PRP, the ethical clearance and on available funding, the CSC will recommend projects to be funded to the regional/national funding organisations. Based on these recommendations, final decisions will be made by the regional/national funding organisations, subject to budgetary considerations. The regional/national funding organisations will follow the ranking list established by the PRP members. The project coordinator will be informed by the JCS of the decision. The project partners should be informed by their project coordinator. Redress procedure Applicants can appeal against the evaluation outcome if they suspect a breach in the application of the evaluation and selection procedures. This redress procedure only covers the procedural aspects evaluation and/or central formal eligibility checks. Requests for redress on national/regional eligibility decisions will not be handled by the JCS and need to be addressed to the responsible national contact point. The redress will not call into question the scientific or technical judgement of appropriately qualified experts/evaluators. Applicants shall submit their appeal to the JCS via email (EPPerMed@agencerecherche.fr) up to seven (7) calendar days following the dispatch of the evaluation outcome email by the JCS at the end of each stage (first and second step). The proposal outcome email containing the results of the evaluation will give information on the appeals procedure, which is described below. Admissibility of appeals For an appeal to be admissible the following conditions must be met: The appeal must be submitted by the coordinator of the proposal to which the appeal relates; Only one appeal per proposal will be considered; The appeal must be submitted via email within a seven (7) calendar days deadline. The appeal must contain the following minimum information: • The name of the call for proposals; • The proposal acronym; • The title of the proposal; • A description of the alleged shortcomings of the evaluation procedure. The appeal must demonstrate a procedural irregularity, factual error, manifest error of assessment, misuse of powers, or a conflict of interests. Appeals that do not meet the above conditions, or do not deal with the evaluation of a specific proposal or express mere disagreement with the result or the reasoning of the evaluation might be judged as not suitable for redress. Procedure Upon receipt of an appeal, an acknowledgement of receipt will be sent by the JCS within seven (7) calendar days. The acknowledgement shall report the redress process and the anticipated date by which a decision on the appeal will be communicated to the appellant. All appeals received by the seven (7) calendar days deadline will be processed together, and the decision of the CSC will be communicated to the appellant by the JCS within seven (7) calendar days from the deadline for submitting the appeals.

Further information

Applicants should contact their corresponding regional/national representative to inquire about eligibility with their respective funding organisations prior to submitting an application (see regional/national contact details, Annex I of the call text). For additional information, please contact the JCS (EPPerMed@agencerecherche.fr). Adherence to the regional/national funding regulations in the “Guidelines for Applicants” document is mandatory (https://www.eppermed.eu/funding-projects/calls/ritc2026/).