Thanks very much. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us.

As most of you would know, we are a company in three jurisdictions: Melbourne, our corporate headquarters; Berlin, where we do all the R&D and support for the Visage product; and the US, which is our main market where approximately 90% of our revenue is derived from. We have two product sets.

Here in Australia, we develop the Visage RIS, which does all the scheduling, billing, back office, interface to payors for some of the largest radiology groups in Australia. The Visage 7 product, on the other hand, is a clinical product, it's a radiologist's desktop, and it's the one that we are selling in the US.

In terms of the results, we felt all of our figures headed in the right direction. Revenue was up 28.4%, our underlying EBIT was up circa 30%, our EBIT margins period-on-period increased, our cash and investments went up by 5.3% despite a buyback, increased dividends, and an investment of $10 million that we made during the period.

Our interim dividend went up 28% to 32 cents a share, fully franked. We felt that everything is moving in the right direction.

In terms of the highlights, it was another record half. We won seven new contracts, totaling $280 million at minimums.

Putting that in perspective, just two years ago, that's what we would sell in an entire year. We renewed the FMoL contract.

We had our first very material sale of our cardiology suite to Colorado, UColorado. We completed six cloud-based implementations.

Our RSNA 25 was the busiest to date. We have made significant progress with the other -ologies, cardiology and pathology to name two, and we believe we've formed a very strong base for growth in second half FY 2026 and beyond.

Some of the highlights, as I mentioned, UC, UColorado was $170 million deal early in July. We followed that up with a very important client in University of Heidelberg, which I'll talk about a little later.

We won a $44 million, five-year contract with a group, ARM, which is their management name, but the name that they go by in the market is RANTH, or Radiology Associates of North Texas, the largest private reading group in the US. Then in November, we had three contracts that together gave us nearly $30 million at minimum TCV, and finished off the year with BayCare adding the archive to their viewer workflow, which is a $25 million deal taking them to full-stack.

A busy half. In terms of revenue splits, the salmon color is recurring transaction revenue, the blue is recurring again, which is more of our support licenses from our previous capital model.

Again, all of our splits in the revenue went up as predicted in the first half. In terms of the model, it is a highly scalable model.

We think we're one of the most scalable on the market. There is no CapEx, hardware, or cloud.

It's a software-only model. We charge for all our training and installation.

We have a very highly contained cost base, and hence the reason the margin continues to grow as our footprint increases. Just putting that in perspective, we believe our margins are somewhere around triple our nearest competitor.

In terms of the transaction model, most of you will be familiar with this. It is based on minimums.

Our forward revenue for five years based on minimums has broken through the $1 billion mark for the first time. There's a lot of upside as client examination volumes grow and our clients grow well above industry average.

We feel it's an annuity-style stream with far greater predictability. In terms of our investment during the half, many of you will be familiar, we made a $10 million investment, which is a hybrid of debt and equity, in another ASX-listed company, in 4DMedical.

It's a two-year term for the investment. It has a coupon rate of 12.5% per annum.

If the 4D share price goes up from our entry point, if it doubles, we get back $20 million. If it goes beyond that, there is an equity component based on the share price of our entry and the then-current share price.

As we sit at 31st of December, that has provided an unrealized gain of approximately $150 million. Who are our market?

We have the largest footprint in the academic medical center market in the US. We do 11 out of the top 20 hospitals, as rated by US News.

We see that we're now expanding not only at that level, but also the next level down, a lot of the regional academic medical centers like UIowa, UKentucky, etc., that we picked up in the past 12 to 18 months. Very important space for us.

The biggest space is IDNs. It's about 40% plus of the US market.

We are increasing our footprint at IDNs of all sizes within that space. Again, with things like UColorado, which is a mixture of IDN and academic, that we saw good growth in the half.

The private market's an interesting one. It was one that was previously dormant.

There was a lot of M&A activity up to about 2023 when interest rates started to rise. We have been quite successful there of late.

RANTH is, as I mentioned, the largest radiologist-owned private reading group in the US, and we secured a $44 million, five-year deal at minimums. That adds to the two deals we made in the previous financial year in Lucid and DuPage.

Again, we're now looking at about $115 million at minimums in this market, and growing. We think this will become a material market for us alongside the academic medical centers and IDNs.

In terms of Visage RIS, that continued its growth. We sell it mainly here in Australia and in Canada.

We do have long-term contracts with some of the largest radiology players here in Australia, and we are seeing increasing uptake of the RIS, particularly as new groups are forming as splinter groups are coming to us. What makes us so special?

Many of you will have heard me say this many times before, but it still holds true: the three key elements of the system, speed, functionality, and scalability. We are number one in all these three areas, and it's the sum of all these parts that makes Visage what it is.

We've seen relentless increase in the size of data sets. One of the areas in particular over the last 12 months has been an area in CT called photon-counting CT.

The file sizes produced are orders of magnitude larger than standard CT, and it will become the new default standard. We do see file sizes increasing relentlessly as new modalities and refinements of modalities are introduced.

That helps us because pretty much all of our competitors still use the compress-and-send methodology. The file's compressed, sent down the network, unpacked at the local radiologist's workstation, and all of the 3D manipulation enhancement is all done locally on that workstation.

The problem with that model is the files are just getting too big. The gigabyte is the new megabyte, and it's just taking too long and clogging up the networks.

We, on the other hand, have a unique proprietary streaming technology that Visage developed in-house, and it's the basis of all of our speed and flexibility. It allows even the largest data sets to be visualized sub-two seconds, and in 95% of cases sub-one.

It is a huge advantage for us, particularly nowadays where remote reading and home reading has become so prevalent around the world. The sales, again, going through them, some of you may have seen this before, but University of Colorado, it's our second biggest deal.

It's $170 million, second largest in company history. I call it full-stack plus one because it includes cardiology, all three core products, that's Workflow, Viewer, Archive, plus our new cardiology offering, making this a material sale for that new product.

They are a highly respected hospital system, as I said, a mixture of IDN and academic, and that we are looking to implement that within the next few months before financial year-end. The second one is slightly different, again European, it's University of Heidelberg.

It is a top German medical school and teaching hospital. Heidelberg is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, universities in Europe, possibly the world, still operating.

The other thing is its affiliated cancer center is the largest cancer research center in Europe. Very high profile.

It will increase our footprint in Germany and in Europe because of the network effect of the type of university and hospital that it is. We are the value product, our highest-charging product in the market, and we think that's where we should be.

We provide the most value, the greatest and proven return on investment, not only is it financial, but it is clinical. In other words, we allow radiologists to do what they otherwise would take too long to do with other systems or couldn't do with other systems, which is incredibly important for us.

It's one thing to have the software, but it's another thing to put it in. We have a highly optimized fast-track implementation methodology.

We believe we can complete large-scale projects in under 20% of the time of industry norm, and certainly of many of our competitors. It is a huge saving for the clients, and it's a huge saving for us.

We have used a highly optimized hybrid model with people on site for training and people remote, which gives us the flexibility depending on whether the radiologists are at home or inside the hospitals in times of training, and it is a key differentiator. I think it's becoming an even bigger differentiator now than it was maybe two or three years ago because there are a number of our competitors that are having massive issues with implementations and timing of implementations, where sometimes they're delayed two to three years, some of them.

Again, huge strategic advantage for us. We are also solving what's most probably the biggest issue facing radiologists, doctors in general, but radiologists in particular, the acute shortage.

Burnout is the new epidemic, we are able to address that. We can increase productivity of radiologists out of the gate day one they start using the system by not just 25%, sometimes as high as 40 or 50%, and this has paid huge dividends for the systems that have implemented us.

As I mentioned, the important thing for us, it's not just a matter of finances and efficiency, it's also the fact that we do move the needle clinically. Our growth strategy, it remains intact.

We are expanding our footprint quite rapidly. We're now over 10% of the US market.

We are seeing above industry average transaction growth from existing clients because of what we enable. The new product offerings in cardiology and soon to be pathology are starting to pay material dividends.

We are extending our footprint in other markets, Heidelberg in Germany, for instance. We are leveraging our R&D capability in terms of new add-on technologies, which include things around report generation and AI.

All of these principles of growth for us remain intact. North American market, we estimate roughly 670 million exams performed per annum, growing on average between 2% and 3% a year.

We believe we, from a product perspective, can address 100% of that, and we're unique in that regard. In terms of when is a deal too small for it to be commercially viable, we think that the tail is about 15% of the market or less, and that 15% is diminishing as the smaller players find it difficult to standalone and are absorbed into larger health systems because of security, governance, and the cost of doing business is just getting higher.

We're currently, as I mentioned, now over 10% and growing. We do have a very large addressable runway, which we're going after.

In terms of the pipeline, we feel it is very robust at the moment. There are a lot of opportunities in there.

Those opportunities are across all three market segments and across all sizes of opportunity, which is important. We think there's been a very strong network effect from implementations in all three sectors of the market, which gives us an advantage over others, and we have many prospects coming through various stages of the cycle.

In terms of the products, the first one was the Viewer. We did release a number of years ago the Visage 7 open archive.

It's a key part of our cloud strategy. I'm pleased to say that most clients nowadays take both the Viewer, the Archive, and also the Workflow product, full-stack.

Not only does this increase the TCV for us, it makes the implementation so much easier because we don't have other third parties to deal with. We are seeing more and more and more of that in our sales, and particularly in the last 24 months.

Cloud is huge for us. We have not put in an on-premise implementation in the US in around about five years now.

We believe we are the only truly cloud-native application currently in the market, and we think that has made a significant difference for us in terms of competition and our ability and speed with which we can implement. We are cloud-vendor agnostic.

We have large-scale implementations in AWS, Azure, and Google GCP, which gives us a lot of flexibility that others just don't have. In terms of our strategy, enterprise imaging or one viewer for all modalities, we are moving much, much closer to that with our new product suite.

We now do radiology, cardiology, and soon-to-be-released pathology. We also do reflective light and videos, which will cater for all the other -ologies like dermatology, ophthalmology.

We think we have moved a fair way down the track to being the only true single platform for the entire healthcare enterprise, and we think that will increase our value proposition going forward, particularly since all of it is cloud. The end game is what we see here on this slide.

It is cloud, it's got Visage 7 as the center of everything for all clinicians in all -ologies. It is also the repository of data for AI and generation of foundation models and AI algorithms, and it is the conduit for all image within the healthcare enterprise.

We are getting very close to delivering on that entire scenario. Cardiology, as we mentioned, we've had our first really big sale with UColorado.

It is the same code base as Visage 7. It's ultrafast, and gives immediate access for the cardiologists for large data sets, which they need.

It also has all the interoperability with third-party reporting systems such as Epic Cupid, which is used by so many of the clients. We see this as, as I mentioned before, full-stack plus one, again, an ability to increase total contract value.

We have, in the pipeline, numerous opportunities, RFPs that are for both radiology and cardiology, and we're seeing very strong interest from the existing user base in the cardiology offering. The last of the major -ologies, digital pathology, we announced the release of that late last year.

We are going through the validation and FDA approval process for that. The important thing for us again, it is the same Visage platform, it is the same code base.

It's not a whole separate development, it's part of our standard development. We've had an extreme amount of interest in that from prospective and user base already.

The last question, the topic du jour, is, well, I'm sure all of you've seen in the press of late, is AI, is it a disruptor or not? I thought this was an interesting quote from the ABC just from last week, that it basically says software is a sinkhole, AI may revolutionize the way we live and work, could very well lay waste to business empires that themselves only recently overthrew the old world order.

There's been a lot of headlines similar to this. Our view is that we think this is a gross generalization and overstatement of AI capability.

Certainly, one of the concerns around massive infrastructure investment by some of the hyperscalers in AI and data centers does not apply to us, quite the opposite. We are a capital-light model.

We're a software-only, we don't have any CapEx or data center build-out outlay. Matter of fact, we think we'll be the beneficiaries of the build-out done by others.

The other thing is our software is proprietary. It wasn't developed on a easily or readily available toolkit or platform.

It is deeply technical and highly specialized, and very domain-specific. It's not a generic software stack, and it's not one that others know of the technology because we have not only patented it, but we haven't published a road map of what we've done.

To date, no one has been able to emulate our technology stack, even though it's been in the market over 16 years. Having said that, our solution is more than just software.

It's the systems and methods we've built around it: all the training, the rapid implementation that I mentioned. We often train thousands of techs, radiologists, and clinicians in a single go-live, and it's all around how we distribute it and support it.

Because healthcare is a highly regulated environment, you can't just whip up a program and there you go. It has to go through a whole regulatory cycle and be validated.

Importantly, it is a mission-critical solution because patient safety is at stake. It's not a simple drag-and-drop and you've got Visage Mark II.

In terms of other moats that we have, unlike a lot of other SaaS companies, we have long-term contracts with our clients. They can't just cancel at a whim or a month or three months' notice.

As I mentioned before, we have over $1 billion at minimums of contracted revenue in the next five years, and we foresee that that will continue growing. The AI tools that are around allows you to focus on system design rather than coding.

That suits us because we use tools extensively throughout Visage and Pro Medicus. We have fewer, smarter developers that have highly optimized the use of these tools.

Then on top of that, we also have the in-house capability to develop AI, which we've done previously and continue to do. Finally, the last comment I'll make is that AI was predicted to replace radiologists, and therefore would there ever be a need for Pro Medicus Visage in the future.

I think that's proven to be wildly overoptimistic. All manpower studies, as recently as ones published overnight, are predicting that AI will allow the catch-up of the backlog, but will not replace radiologists.

If anything, it will help generate more work for radiologists. We think we're ideally placed to benefit from AI, and I'm happy to take questions on that in the next few minutes.

These are some of our developments. We have breast cancer detection in FDA, the investment in Lucid, the investment in 4D, a lung AI that I mentioned before, the collaborations through a number of top AMCs, the latest being UCSF joins Mayo, Yale, and NYU.

We have a growing number of third-party AI integrations to offer to our user base. This is our leadership team.

Malte Westerhoff and Detlev Stalling are the two co-developers of the Visage platform. They're both PhD scientists in healthcare data and analysis, and they lead a whole team that does not only our development, but our efforts in AI both in terms of using it and in production of our own algorithms.

I'll finally finish off with something that we are seeing more and more use cases for, that's the Apple Vision Pro, the 3D immersive goggles. We were one of the first, if not the first, to have software ready for it.

This year, an unprecedented thing occurred. Apple did a joint development with us, oh, joint session with us at their key at their key Chicago Apple Store.

Apple are very protective of their brand, of their store, of their technology. Took 11 months to organize, but it was a wildly successful event.

This is a picture of it. You see less than half the audience.

We estimate 300 to 400 people turned up to listen to three radiologists talk about how they actually use in the real world the Apple Vision Pro and our technology. It was quite futuristic.

Finally, RSNA, it was our biggest and best. This year we had 62 people, which we needed full-time, and the stand as you see in pretty much the entire photo is the footprint of our stand at RSNA.

It is growing every year and paying significant dividends in terms of new leads and new opportunities that we see. Just finishing up, it's been the most successful half in our company's history.

Majority of sales are full-stack, and we see that continuing. Our proven implementation, support capability, a really key strategic strength, as is cloud.

We think we have an unparalleled value proposition, and our North American footprint and pipeline continue to grow strongly. Cardiology, full-stack plus one, we feel that we will see more of these deals coming through the pipeline.

Pathology, again, very well received to those that we've shown it to. We believe we are ideally positioned to leverage AI, it is a plus rather than a threat, and we do see increase of use cases for Visage Ease and Apple Vision Pro.

I'll leave it there, and obviously happy to take any questions.

Morning, Sam and Clayton. Thanks for taking questions.

I've just got two, and I'll ask them one by one. First on timing, we clearly have very strong visibility on your contracted revenues, but just from a timing perspective, are you able to give us some more detail around the drivers that we'll see into the second half, and potentially into '27, and then just confirming that revenue growth in that second half should start to accelerate as more of these contracts come online?

Then just to follow up on that one with commentary that there are three more Trinity cohorts that will go live in that second half, was that just in line with your prior expectations?

It is. At our AGM, which was in November last year, our chairman said that we were ahead of our internal budgets, and we were and are.

We knew that particularly Trinity, which is one of the biggest go-lives and one of the biggest contract wins in the history of our industry, we knew that the first cohort would only go live at the end of October. That was a time set by them, not by us.

There was only two months, and we knew that was going to be the case. There are five cohorts in the first tranche, and we have completed the second cohort in January.

All of that is totally on track in terms of our timing. Each cohort is as large as a huge academic institution, they're very, very large.

Each of those will contribute very significantly to the second half, as well as anything else that we put in during the second half. We've got scheduled for another seven, well, besides Trinity, another five implement oh, not five, another three three implementations on top of the Trinity ones.

There's plenty to go on in this half, but I think the main thing for us will be a step-up in revenue from cohort one and cohort two in Trinity, both of which are completed.

To answer your question about Trinity, yes, there are four cohorts that'll be complete by the end of 30th of June, which was exactly how we thought they would be, another one early July. The five in the main five cohorts by then and fully completed by October next year.

October this year, sorry.

Got it. Thank you.

Then just my second question on AI, as you mentioned, we're seeing some very significant advancements in AI. How might this have changed your thinking around the opportunity for PME, ramping up investment now versus a little bit later on?

I guess if you could share any key milestones that you might be thinking to achieve in this business over the year?

As I said, we see AI through multiple prisms. One is we use it ourselves in our own development, and have for quite a period of time.

As we said, it does assist coders, it's not like something someone else has and we don't, quite the opposite. Then we also see the market for AI in our industry evolving to being very material, and we think we're very well positioned to benefit from that.

AI will be used throughout radiology in various steps, not all at once, but I think it will become prevalent. Importantly, I think it will become prevalent as an aid to radiologists rather than a replacement.

I think the opportunity for us is to use it in our own development, which we have been doing, and we have highly optimized that. On the business side for us, clearly we're looking to position ourselves as a key player in that AI space in radiology as it rolls out.

Got it. Thank you.

Morning, Sam and Clayton. A couple of questions: one on AI and the other one on your Department of Defense opportunity.

If I start with AI, how should we think from a contract term perspective, mainly because if I think about healthcare customers, as with everybody in this AI environment, are they seeking flexibility longer term just given the advances in AI and PACS software? I guess maybe not this current renewal period, but if I roll forward maybe three to five years, do you think there's a risk that some of your customers might seek shorter renewals rather than be locked in for a five- to seven-year contract term?

That's the first question, if there's been any conversations around that. I guess related to that is also price.

Your margins are triple your nearest competitor, which naturally attracts capital from other players. Do you think, again, that price could be potentially impacted longer term given what's going on in terms of AI advances and competition?

On contract length, we're actually seeing exactly the opposite. We've, in recent terms, written contracts 10 years out.

We don't know of any client that would even imagine writing their own product to replace us. What some will do is, and have always done, is they've developed things in-house that could be an adjunct to us.

They develop their own AI algorithms in very niche and bespoke areas, and that has always occurred. There's nothing new in that.

If we think of anything, my view is we're actually seeing longer-term or certainty in our contracts. That was the first one.

The second question, sorry, Garry,

I'm Garry to do with price. Again.

Coming

back to the price.

Yeah. If anything, I think it will help us extend our price, because we are building AI into our platform as part of the core offering, which allows us to make it even further ahead of others.

I think AI in terms of price, I think AI in terms of extra product will all be incredibly positive for us.

Thanks, Sam. The next one on just an update on that Department of Defense opportunity, anything you can provide, status, any updates that you're aware of you can let us know about?

I think just that we are progressing. We're nearly complete having our VISN 23 in cloud.

They did upgrade during the first half to Workflow, we'll have full-stack in cloud. We always envisaged somewhere around February, early March, and that's on track for that.

We think that will be the poster child for all the others. Yes, we are close to the Department of Defense looking at opportunities.

You may have noticed that they had selected another vendor for a large telehealth, teleradiology opportunity, and they're not progressing with that. Again, maybe that will come out to market, too, which would be of interest to us.

Yes, we think that it's progressing well, and all the steps we've taken with FedRAMP authority to operate are all starting to come together in our favor.

Thanks, team. Thank you.

Hi, Sam and Clayton. Thank you for taking my calls.

The first one's just on pipeline, and the second one a bit of an extension on AI. Firstly, with regard to pipeline, I think last time when we saw some of the major contracts, Trinity, they obviously kept a very close eye on the implementation and the success of the rollout with Baylor Scott & White.

When you look at the pipeline currently, and you've obviously progressed and done two of the big go-lives for Trinity, how do you see the opportunity opening up into some of those other top 20 sort of, or top 20 or so hospitals in the US? Maybe if you can give any feedback on where you're at in that domain?

Look, there's no doubt that success at Baylor, even in early stages, the first two cohorts in Trinity, each cohort is bigger than any go-live, single go-live attempted by anyone. We're resetting the boundaries.

All of that is resonating in the industry, and it's definitely being positive for us as a network effect, because people go, "Well, if you can do Baylor, you can do us," or "If you can do Trinity, and you're somewhere in between Baylor and Trinity in size, we can do them, too." They've all been flagship implementations, no question about that.

That's really helpful. You talked a little bit just on the pipeline around the outpatient and the reading clinics.

That seems like that market is growing, and obviously with some of the shift in terms of reimbursement and things like that, that's becoming more important. A lot of them are on older systems like Intelerad, which has been bought by GE.

Just some more comment maybe on that in terms of how you see the opportunity staging up in pipeline on that front?

It's moving very quickly for us, and in a positive direction simply with RANTH is one of the most highest profile of the fully private groups, it's incredibly well known. The thing about groups like RANTH, they won't take Archive because they're not the archive of record, the hospital is, they don't need it.

Their volume expansion can be considerable. We think that particular contract has a lot of upside in it.

We are seeing a lot more interest in the ambulatory market, pure ambulatory. Having said that, a lot of our larger hospital clients are building centers or partnering with a provider for outpatient centers around their hospitals, and all of that has been good business for us as well.

From something where we really didn't have much of a look in about three years ago, that private space is growing very nicely for us, and we think that will continue.

Great. Thanks, Sam.

Just on AI, I'll take a different tack than the prior questions, you've obviously gone into a bit of detail on that. In terms of your ability to monetize AI, I think one thing I often think about is the network across the academics and other major hospitals where they're trying to bring their IP to the real world, and also using that network as a sort of validation rather than getting external validation outside the US.

How important do you think that will be going forward in terms of segregating the different tiers potentially of algorithms? Have you seen much progress from those academics in terms of trying to bring some of these algos to market?

I think the whole thing about algorithms is who created them, who curated the data, and how up-to-date they are, they're not a set and forget. I think that's where the key academic centers have an enormous head start over others.

As we tap into a number of them. We see that they will serve multiple roles, like the breast cancer detection algorithm that we're releasing with NYU, obviously a lot of work in background, a lot of clinical work, a lot of validation.

We've had it validated in a second tier-one academic, secondary validation, which we can do quicker than anyone. I think all that will be, as you say, not only a source of algorithms, but a primary and secondary and possibly tertiary validation.

The more validation you have by tier-one names, clearly the more, the higher the level of confidence in that algorithm by the other people who look to buy it. I think all of that is working in our favor, and the first model of that will be the breast cancer detection that's currently in FDA.

Great. Thanks, Sam.

Thanks, Clayton. I'll jump into the queue.

Thanks very much. Sam, just a first question, just the contract model that you have, as AI increasingly plays a role in assisting radiologists, what does that do to your per-click model?

Is there any challenges there, is that built into the contract that it wouldn't have an impact?

No, basically, we look at AI for a radiologist in sort of two camps: one's under the bonnet, that is built into the application, makes things quicker, and will allow us to maintain our pricing and possibly increase it due to the value that that gives. The second is around assisting a radiologist, second set of eyes, as we call it.

There we will look to charge on an opt-in basis, if they decide to use the breast cancer detection algorithm that's currently in FDA, if a client decides to use it, there will be a cost based on a per-click for using it. One's embedded, and we think that will allow us to increase price.

The other one is an opt-in where they pay for it if they use it.

I guess I was worried that AI might increasingly do the screening, scan through a lot of images and then draw attention to the ones that the radiologist should look at, and that might have implications for the way you've set up the contracts, but I take it you've thought of that. Okay.

No, and to be honest, at the moment, some organizations talk about drowning in the workload, anything that could even just get them square, which is what I think you're talking about, wouldn't take away from what we're currently doing in terms of volume.

Great. Then the other question just on competitive dynamics, they're also winning plenty of contracts.

The way you describe things is pretty compelling. Do you think the reputation of Visage and Pro Medicus, versus any of your peers, there's an obvious one there, has moved at all in the last 12 months?

Do you think there's still more education required? I heard what you said about network effects, but I guess I'm trying to understand those dynamics and whether there is a clear differentiation there.

I think there is. I think there's a clear differentiation, and I think those that actually try before they buy will see the difference being far bigger than they imagine.

We're seeing more of that, and I think it's also reflected in how we can implement. The technology works, the cloud works.

We know of others, I won't name names, but they've signed contracts and 3.5 years later, nothing's been implemented. That's not us.

I think there is a difference. You can't win them all, but I think as we put more and more in, the delta between us and others gets bigger rather than smaller.

If I could squeeze just one more in on what you've said there. Is there any opportunities there where other implementations are clearly running behind schedule for Visage to replace those who won the contract?

We hope so.

If they come back out to market, yes.

We've seen that before a number of times where people have gone for something else, something cheaper, something they thought would work, and it hasn't, and then we win that contract. Trinity

was one case in point where it had been won previously by another group, and clearly they weren't satisfied with the implementation and came to us.

You're right. Depending on how the contracts are written, if groups are unable to deliver, eventually one would hope that the institution will go, "Enough's enough.

We've waited long enough," but all I know is that we can, and we know that others are having difficulty, and I think that's telling.

Understood. Thank you very much.

Morning, Sam and Clayton. Thanks for taking my questions.

Just on FX, just wondering if there was any impact in the first half, and also the outlook into 2H '26, and then just also how that's assumed in terms of your forward revenue guidance over next five years?

In terms of the half that's been, not a lot. It's an average of the six-month period, and although the Australian dollar has appreciated since December, the average was pretty similar to the prior periods.

In terms of forward-looking, well, if I could predict FX, I wouldn't be here, but clearly, as we stand today, it's higher than what we did in the half. Our five-year forward revenue takes into effect FX as of today, pretty much.

Okay. That's got $0.70, $0.71 in that $1.080?

Yep.

Okay. That's great.

Then just also, look, just staying on the kind of competition dynamic at the moment, obviously there's been the acquisition by GE of Intelerad. Are you seeing any evolution of competition within the space post that acquisition and changes in the dynamics at all?

To be frank, we think that that acquisition is, has been already, and will be good for us. There'd be some that feel, which is my feeling, that a software company that's meant to be agile and nimble doesn't sit well inside a modality vendor that's a lot more structured.

I think the dynamic will suit us, and some of the opportunities that we're seeing in our pipeline sort of reflect that.

Okay. In terms of Intelerad by themselves would be a stronger competitor because they're more nimble versus going into a larger company like GE?

Correct. I think they originally founder-led.

There were four founders, but they sold out to private equity quite a number of years ago, and since that, I think their potency has decreased in the market considerably. This, I think, will be an even bigger leg-up.

That's a personal view, and we've seen the first window of it, it'll be interesting to see how that dynamic plays out.

That's great. Thanks for answering my questions.

Thanks.

Hey, team. I've got two related to AI.

The first one, I was just interested to understand a bit more with all the AI diagnostic tool partnerships that you've got underway, what proportion of radiologists' diagnostic problems that they have to sort of think about, my understanding is there's maybe 10,000 different potential diagnoses a radiologist might make. What proportion of that would you have covered with the pipeline of your development?

Then the second one was just if you could maybe flesh out for us a little bit currently, Pro Medicus has this very big advantage around how much radiologist productivity comes out of using your tool because of how fast images load. What do you think that would look like if you had complete coverage of diagnostic assistance inside the platform?

Yeah. Look, you're right.

I think they're about 2,400 and something differential diagnoses, and maybe there's even more when you look at the various body parts. I think AI traditionally has been more single diagnosis, single body part.

We're seeing a broadening of that in the market where some AI will look at a body part and have multiple diagnoses, they cover multiple bases. The problem with that is the FDA needs to clear each one independently.

If it does 20 things, they independently clear 20 different algorithms. Now that is slowly changing.

I think we're at the beginning of that journey, not us, the whole industry. We are starting to see real-world application of AI as an aid to diagnosis.

Some specific cases have reimbursement, which obviously is easier for organizations to implement because they get paid for it, so that helps, too. We're at the beginning of that journey.

In terms of efficiency, I think anything that the AI gives sits on top of our 25% plus. You don't get 20 x percent out of Visage and then you use AI and it soaks up some of the advantage we have.

It's all additive, absolutely 100% additive. I think we're a fair way away from every body part being covered, but the industry is moving quickly, and all of that, we see, will benefit us, but certainly not detract from the speed that we give in the platform that will always sit on top of.

Maybe just a follow-up on that then, just in terms of your ability to actually drive that versus it needing to come out of the academic institutions that you've sort of talked about, do you have an ability to sort of forge ahead with that, or do you need a partner hospital to actually decide they want to develop something before you can go and do it because of where the data's sitting?

Oh, no. We, if you look at what we did with Elucid, which is in cardiac CT AI, we'll be partnering with them.

We don't need anything from the academics. We're taking an FDA-approved product from a third party and taking a pass-through by putting it through the platform, and you'll see more and more of that.

Where we use the academics is in the areas where we develop or co-develop. In other words, it's a build or partner type scenario with every algorithm.

We have a mixture, and the mixture is always dynamic depending on who's doing what. We always feel we'll be the point in the middle, whether something to do with UCSF or whether it's something we partner with another third party, they'll all be on the cards.

Clear. All right.

Thank you.

Hi, guys. Have you got me?

Yep.

Great. Thanks, guys, for taking my question.

Just a couple. Firstly, on the margin piece, slightly better year-on-year, but less of an expansion than what we saw in the first half and I guess a less than what the market was anticipating.

Can we just get a bit of your thoughts on ongoing margin improvements, the moving pieces in there? I know you mentioned RSNA, but a bit of a breakdown in terms of what are your expectations for sales force or other cost contributions would be great.

That's my first question.

Clearly revenue increased and helped with the margin, they did go up. We did say six months ago we think the margins can increase, but don't expect them to shoot through too much higher.

We might be able to eke out a few percentage here or there. Costs in the first half, clearly RSNA's in there, it's always lower than the second half.

The employee benefits was also a little higher this period. We had new employees that have started.

We had some mark-to-market LTI and STI's that had to be increased, they were in this half that won't be repeated in the second half. As I said, pleasingly, the EBIT margins did increase.

Great. Thanks.

Then just on AI developments, one of your competitors came out with a set of tools essentially looking at reporting and diagnostic support. Is that something kind of you're building into the base Visage platform, or is it in the pipeline, things like error checking and AI kind of voice recordings?

Yeah. We've already done that.

We showed at RSNA the generative AI tools that we have that can look through and do error checking of reports, and also, if you dictate just key findings, generate the clinical summary. We're already there with that, and we're extending that capability in the reporting side.

They may have announced it, but we've already done it.

Perfect. Then just one last one from me on the Trinity contract.

Apologies if I'm going over anything obvious, but just so I'm clear, on the first tranche, your five cohorts will be complete by July. Just how much that represents in terms of the full contract, and then just an update on the following tranches, timing, contributions, and whatnot?

That'll be about 80% done, maybe a bit more, 85%. We'll hit the new financial year, which will still be under their one-year minimum, at about 80, 85%, so that'll be good going into FY '27.

The last two cohorts for Trinity go live in August and then October, so that'll be fully completed within 12 months of go-live, which again, as Sam mentioned, is unheard of in the industry. Groups of that size in the past, we've had other competitors take three or four years even to start.

Whilst I think it has been misread a little bit in the market about what the timing of it will set us up obviously for a better second half and then a better starting to FY '27.

Perfect. Thank you.

Morning, guys. First question for me is just on the pipeline.

Obviously, you've called out that you've had a couple of cardiology wins in there, but to date, just curious when you look forward, what percent of the pipeline, or just a rough idea, any color around how many of the clients are looking for your full-stack plus one?

It's actually material. I don't know the exact number.

It can change, because sometimes people don't want it in the RFP, but then they look at it, it is fluid, it can move around. These RFPs, as can be 18 months to 24 months, things can be added.

We know that there's some already where it is in the RFP, and we're seeing a lot more of that than we would have seen maybe even 12 months ago. Look, we're not saying every single deal will have it, but we do believe we will see more of it, not less.

That's for sure.

Got it. Then on the pathology opportunity as well, can you give us a feel for approximate timeline of when you think you're going to be able to launch that?

I guess curious as well in terms of the discussions you're having now that you've, I guess, kind of prototyped it at RSNA, how many of the people in the tender pipeline are interested in the pathology aspect as well?

The launch is imminent. We have one client that we know we will be able to put it into, which they doing their own internal validation, therefore it doesn't need regulatory.

That's within the next few months or less. What we have seen is not so much people putting an RFP for pathology, or with pathology included, but it's an important decision-maker when they're looking at a vendor.

They'll say, "We're not looking at it for 12 months or 18 months, but we need to know that you'll have it," sort of thing. I think the fact that we've announced it, they've seen it, that's validation enough for them.

I think you will see more and more throughout the year, but it's not like cardiology where it's here and now. I think you'll see more and more looking at it within the 12-, 18-month period, but it's important for them to know you have it now.

Clearly, it's a very important thing for us strategically.

Excellent. That's all for me.

Thank you.

Hi, guys. Just a couple of questions.

Firstly, in relation to the buyback, obviously, the share price come back a fair bit since the first part of the buyback. Now that the results out of the way, just wondering what your thoughts are on the buyback going forward are?

Look, clearly, that's a decision for the board, and we obviously would look at that. If we thought that the buyback made sense at a higher price, I think it's telling you something.

Again, I can't comment fully on that till we as a board sit together, which I'm sure we will.

Right. Just second one, in terms of renewals, you called out the renewal that you had in the first half with FMoL.

Anything else coming up for renewal in the next 12 months?

We have a few, and I think we've mentioned before Mayo Clinic and Mass General, a few others, Yale are coming up, there have been a few that we're working on.

OHSU.

OHSU is another one, yep, all moving forward.

Are you in sort of discussions or active sort of discussions there on those ones, or?

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Yep.

Great. Thank you.

I think it's going to be very significant for us. One is in its own right, we, as we've just mentioned, we won UColorado, which is a big one with cardiology, and we are seeing a trend in the RFPs.

I think the second thing is it's important strategically, because people are looking at the broader enterprise, and the fact that we can do cardiology and soon to do pathology on the same platform, and I stress that because no one else can do that, I think strategically, they're very important for us.

As or most of you would know, I was on the 4D advisory board, I'm familiar with their technology. We have made the investment, which today, as it sits, is a good investment, and we also said when we made the original deal that there was potential to put their technology on our platform.

Again, it's something we're looking at in amongst other algorithms, as we've mentioned before, third-party algorithms on the platform, and they could potentially be one of those.

We don't control the share price, but certainly we do believe there has been a lot of generalizations and misapprehensions around AI in general and its role in terms of software disruption. I think it's been totally oversimplified and, to be honest, exaggerated, and we've put our view forward on that, as have others.

We also think we have the most future commitments of any company, and certainly the most in our industry, which we've now announced over $1 billion. Take that for what it's worth.

We do think we're sitting in a good position with known future contracts at minimum without increasing day by day.

In terms of realizing the 4D gains, it's a two-year loan proposition, debt and equity, it's only realized after two years. We can't break that before then, there's no chance of realizing that beforehand.

It's purely we, through accounting standards, have to show its value as of 31st of December, but clearly, the ultimate value will depend on the share price in end of July 2027.

Certainly think in terms of days, we don't have one track. All we know is we've implemented things within three to six months where others have taken years.

Clearly, the bigger ones like Trinity, UColorado, we specified it in the announcement when we signed them that they would be longer than normal, and that's generally based on them, not us, which is getting their ducks in a row, making sure they have radiologists available to train, and just they're large organizations. It's still a fast-track implementation compared to the competition.

It's just sometimes for others, it takes longer for our customers to get organized.

Also on the translation to sales, I'd actually disagree with that, quite the opposite. We have in this half sold more than just two years ago we did in a whole year.

It is translating to increased sales. We've had record last year with Trinity and others, and we're well on the track this year to just shy of $300 million in new sales, and that's at minimum, it has definitely translated to increased sales, no question of that.

Yes, it is a five-year deal. When we originally signed them in 2013, it was for a bit under $3-4 million over five years, and it's now around $11 million.

You can see it's more than doubled, a bit over $2 million per annum. It's more than doubled in the 10 years that we've had them.

They've taken additional product, plus they have more licenses now than they've ever had. In terms of expanding into other VISNs, I think Sam spoke about the opportunity there, and we are looking to move VISN 23 into the GovCloud, super secure government cloud with AWS, and that should be completed by the end of March, and then we have a reference site for other opportunities in that space.

We think there's good potential because the government has said everything needs to go into this GovCloud, and we feel we're one of the few, if not the only one, that has been able to show that we can do it. Clearly, we are speaking to the other VISNs, and we are going to be using VISN 23 as the example, poster child, of how we think it should be done.

I can't comment on share price. My view has always been share price has a mind of its own, and I let the markets decide that.

I think our view is that we have shown, hey, we've grown 30% with our biggest implementation only coming at the end of the period, and 30% off a big base. We've had our second highest dollar value of sales in a half ever, and the year's not finished.

We know that we've already completed two major cohorts of Trinity, our biggest client. We think that the base has been well set up.

We have said at our AGM that we expect the second half biased to be stronger, and they're the reasons why, and we're on track for that because the other three cohorts of Trinity are measuring exactly to plan. We think the pipeline is strong, and so therefore, we're hopeful that there'd be more opportunities to add to that $1.080 billion that's sitting there over the next five years as a minimum.

Our second biggest contract also, New Colorado, goes live in April, which includes both radiology and cardiology. Again, sets us up for a good reference site for other cardiology opportunities, but also is additive given the size.

It has the same sort of issues around data size. Cardiology with ultrasound and video clips, now the studies are regularly over a gigabyte each.

What makes us good for radiology in terms of speed, the scalability, applies equally well to cardiology. That's why we think it will be a significant contributor for us going forward.

We have. I wish we could win every single RFP, but that's never really been the case.

We have lost a few. Invariably, it's been around price, which I think is a false economy, because radiology generates so much income for the institution that you really want to give your radiologists the best tools.

Yes, we've lost a few, but it's always been around price.

Something like with Elucid. Elucid have AI for cardiac CT, and what we would do is not just sell it as a standalone, we would sell it so that the output of it could be viewed within Visage as part of looking at that particular study.

It would just make it more seamless. Any of our integrations would make it far more seamless and intuitive for the radiologists to use.

That has been one of the big problems with AI in general, that some radiologists feel it's not well integrated and therefore takes additional steps, and actually slows them down rather than speeds them up. We think integration is key there.

I think that sort of prioritization we can already support. There are third-party AI algorithms that do exactly that.

They prioritize CTs if there's signs of bleeding. That's what we think of low-hanging fruit.

I think the integration that we're looking at is even more sophisticated, like if there is a bleed, where in the brain is it, which images inside the stack have the bleed, and can we open the images to exactly that point. That's an example of a much higher degree of integration, and it's the latter that we're looking at.

As I said, the more integrated, the more seamless it is, the more it'll be adopted.

In terms of the fee model, more likely fee per study, similar to what we do already, if it's a discrete AI that we sell on top of our current offering, it'll be in that methodology. If it's within our product, it will just become part of the core stack.

We have been approached by a number of companies, as you would expect, over the years. We have a person, Tim Kern, who's joined us recently as our Chief Strategy Officer to look at exactly those sorts of opportunities.

Look, again, we're very selective and would only look at opportunities where we thought our involvement could add value. Yes, we potentially see that there could be others going forward.

I think I referred to that a little earlier, but basically, we would see it as a third-party algorithm as we do others, like what we're talking about, Elucid and cardiac CT, and there's a whole raft of other third parties in and around both the cardiac and non-cardiac space, and 4D could potentially be one of those.

In terms of the contribution by UColorado, yes, it starts in April and finishes around July, there's three phases, it'll have a small blush of revenue in the second half of '26, but clearly, pretty much full revenue for '27. In terms of the impact on speed, it doesn't affect it in this case because we're implementing both at the same time, both radiology and cardiology.

We're not doing radiology and then six months later coming back and doing cardiology, it's all at the same time. I think the implementations are exactly where we thought they'd be at this stage, which again, I think may have been misinterpreted in the market.

We have the capability to do it in-house or with our clinical partners, and we've shown that in the past. It really depends on the opportunity and the AI itself, and whether someone's already got something out there in the market, and therefore why just replicate that.

It really depends on the opportunity. We do see most of the applications being third-party, just because they're literally going to be thousands of them.

That won't be static either. There'll be times when we develop things, there'll be times when we develop it in a year or two and use third party in between.

It really is what suits the client best. That's how we would approach it.

Yes, we are still seeing overages in our volume, we still see them on a quarterly basis, and we always get overages from the contracts. If the planned minimum is 80%, they tend to do their 100% within the first quarter, and then grow from there.

We're seeing larger than industry standard in terms of growth. In terms of the contribution from cardiology, we mentioned with UColorado, it was around 13% to 15% of the total contract value, significant, material in that way.

Vancouver Clinic, it was pretty similar, around 10% to 12%. It is a fair size of it.

The revenue segmentation, I think radiology has a massive head start. We're already 10% of the market, clearly it's a bigger base.

Will it be 80% of revenue? No, it'll be greater than that because it's not based on the minimums, it's based on what they've previously done.

Cardiology is already starting to grow, and pathology will follow suit.

In any particular deal, we think that radiology will be between 70% plus. If you add cardiology and pathology, that may take between 20% and 30%, but clearly, that's as we see it today.

It could become bigger if pathology becomes bigger.

No, I think all that it's showing is that we reached 30% knowing 30% NPAT, knowing that one of our biggest implementations, there would only be two months' worth in the first half. That's it in a nutshell.

Obviously, it will contribute six months' worth in the second half, and the second cohort of Trinity will contribute a bit over five months, so that's why we think there'll be a second half bias.

Just on that, the $149 is a pre-tax amount, it's not a case of taking the NPAT of 171 and take 149 from that, which I've seen some commentary around that, to mean our profit's only 20. That's not the case.

That's obviously got tax effect on it as well. Just to be clear, the 149 is a pre-tax non-cash gain.

I think the things we've talked about today: the fact that we've been able to grow first half by 30%, and we know there's a stronger second half, and we've talked about that; the fact that all our implementations and large ones, the Trinity cohorts and UColorado, two of our biggest deals ever in our history, they're all on track to get implemented within the next few months and deliver material revenue step-up; and then the fact that we've sold in six months what we used to sell in 10 years, and all of that revenue is ahead of us as well. I think they're all the signposts along the road.

When we talk about volumes, we're talking about our exam volumes that we get for radiology. Clearly for cardiology, pathology, AI, that's separate to that, we don't include that when we're talking about our volume-based pricing.

If we have a model that's for AI or something else, we would charge that separately on a more likely volume-based methodology. When we talk about our volume of numbers, it's clearly what we do for radiology.

The other thing is, at the moment, we don't know of any autonomous, fully autonomous reading that even if they're exams that are deemed to be normal by AI, they're usually looked at by a radiologist. Our volumes are the ones looked at by a radiologist, which is the volumes created.

We spoke about it at the AGM and I think we've mentioned it on this call that we expect it to be bigger than prior periods. How much that will be, we'll have to wait and see, but we certainly think the second half will be bigger because of, I want to keep saying it, the implementation of Trinity and the different phases of that.

Not really, no. I mentioned around the salaries.

Advertising is a larger cost in this period because of RSNA, but in terms of the salaries and new employee costs, it grew in line with what we expected. Pleasingly, like I said, our EBIT margins still continue to grow.

Certainly, integration does do that. It really depends on the integration, although we have seen that even in an unintegrated viewer and reporting that we can eke out quite material efficiency.

It really depends on the applications themselves.

We don't actually give out the average price per scan other than to say that the cost or the price has been going up over the years. We think because we can prove additional value.

Those who bought years ago would have bought it at a lower price point than today. Again, you can't keep raising price forever, but we've been able to incrementally raise it year on year, and I think we don't see that, per se, changing in any material way.

just to say thanks very much, everybody, for joining us and appreciate the interest. Thank you.