Every plate,
in protocol.
Protocol-driven feeding studies with milligram-level precision, from recipe library to kitchen production to compliance.
Feeding studies are hard.
The software shouldn't be.
Most tools plan menus. Oyster runs protocols, with the precision a study demands and the workflows a kitchen actually uses.
Milligram-level targets, not guesswork.
Every recipe is built on a USDA-backed ingredient library, so each plate carries exact macro and micronutrient values. Participant-level protein ranges and dietary restrictions travel with the person, not a spreadsheet.
Studies, cohorts, and compliance in one structure.
Each study is its own protocol, with its own cycle length, its own participants, and its own targets. Compliance is measured against those targets daily, so out-of-band days surface before they become protocol deviations.
Built for the kitchen, not just the clipboard.
Shopping lists, batch production, and printed meal labels with allergen flags. This is the unglamorous work that decides whether a protocol survives contact with a real kitchen.
From protocol to plate to proof.
Five steps, one system. Everything a coordinator sets up, the kitchen can cook and the study can defend.
It started with a chef who knew there was a better way.
Oyster was built by a research chef working feeding studies at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa. Day after day, the same realization: protocols tracked across spreadsheets, printouts, and memory, when all of it could be done so much more easily.
The tools that existed were built for hospital food service at enterprise scale, not for a study with fourteen participants and a nutrient target measured in milligrams. So the work got built into software instead. Every feature exists because someone had to do that job on a real study day.
Nourishing the research behind tomorrow's cures.
Serious tools stopped at the hospital door.
Powerful, expensive, and scoped to food service at institutional scale. A fourteen-person study is not who they are for.
Fine for recipes and shopping lists. No study structure, no participant targets, nothing to show a reviewer.
The precision a study demands, in a tool a small clinic, a rehab kitchen, or a single research program can actually run.
Every plate, in protocol.
Already using Oyster? Your dashboard is one click away. If you run feeding studies another way, I'd like to hear about it.