Why four apps, not one
From a distance, Fibro, Spondy, Mya and Cypps can look like the same symptom tracker with four different labels on it. They're not, and the difference is the point.
Fibro's recurring assessment is a monthly check-in built on the ten areas of the FIQ, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire rheumatologists use to gauge fibromyalgia's functional impact, scored 0 to 100. It tracks brain fog and barometric pressure sensitivity as first-class data, because that's specifically how fibromyalgia presents, not because those fields were easy to add to a generic template.
Spondy's recurring assessment is BASDAI, the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. It tracks enthesitis, uveitis episodes, and biologic injection schedules, because those are what actually shows up in an axial spondyloarthritis chart, and none of it is relevant to fibromyalgia.
Mya's recurring assessment is the DSQ-SF, the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire, Short Form, developed by Leonard Jason's team at DePaul University and the instrument ME/CFS researchers actually use, alongside the Bell CFS Disability Scale. It's built around post-exertional malaise, a symptom with no real equivalent in the other two conditions, where the crash can land 24 to 72 hours after the exertion that caused it. A same-day flare model can't represent that. Exertion has to be logged as its own timestamped event so a crash two days later can be linked back to what actually triggered it, which meant a different data model, not a different label on the same one.
Cypps's recurring assessment is the NIH-CPSI, the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index urologists use for chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome, alongside a short self-report version of UPOINT, the system urologists use to sort CP/CPPS into its clinical domains. It tracks pelvic floor physiotherapy, trigger point release and the triggers the MAPP research network has linked to flares, none of which belong in the other three apps.
That's four separate sets of domain-specific decisions, made four separate times, each one checked against how clinicians and researchers actually assess that specific condition. It's slower to build than one configurable app would have been. It's also why a fibromyalgia patient, an AS patient, an ME/CFS patient and a CP/CPPS patient each get something that was actually built for them. Psoriatic arthritis is next, with joints and skin tracked together.
What that produces over time
Every entry is dated, scored against the condition's real validated instrument on a recurring cadence, not a one-off intake form, and increasingly cross-referenced against objective inputs: Apple Health or Android Health Connect data where a user connects it (HRV, sleep stages, SpO2, steps), and condition-specific environmental data logged automatically (barometric pressure for Fibro, humidity for Spondy, temperature, UV, and air quality for Mya).
To be direct about where this actually is: there's no clinical trial attached to this, no publication, no formal research partnership. That's not what this page is claiming.
What is true is narrower and, I think, still worth saying plainly. Across four specific patient populations that are chronically under-researched and routinely dismissed in a standard appointment, structured, longitudinal, instrument-scored data is accumulating in exactly the shape a research use would require if that conversation ever happens. Whether it turns into a licensing conversation, a partnership, or nothing at all is a separate question from whether the infrastructure exists to support it. It does, and it's growing every day someone logs an entry.
Who this is for
If you're doing business development for a pharma or biotech company running trials in fibromyalgia, axial spondyloarthritis, ME/CFS or chronic pelvic pain, or you're trying to work out whether four chronic-illness apps is a scattered portfolio or a deliberate thesis, that's what this page is answering.
The same contact form everywhere else on this site reaches me directly.