RecurSignal™ Validation
RecurSignal™ Retrospective Signal Validation — Phase 1 Sample Audit
Pharma Innovation Research by Sebastian Azar · Last reviewed: May 2026
About This Sample Audit
This page documents the initial RecurSignal™ Retrospective Signal Validation conducted on a six-record sample from the Phase 1 dataset.
MDIP = Mapped Discontinuation Intelligence Patterns — OFA's discontinuation-pattern taxonomy mapping public stop-reason language into structured categories. Not a biological mechanism.
Its purpose is to review whether RecurSignal™ scores behave consistently with the expected retrospective pattern-similarity logic across selected MDIP™ discontinuation categories.
This is not a predictive validation. It does not test predictive accuracy and RecurSignal™ is not a predictive model. It is not a full statistical validation of all 4,940 classified records. It is an initial retrospective sample audit of score behaviour across selected classified historical records.
RecurSignal™ is a historical recurrence signal, scored 0–100, calculated deterministically after MDIP™ classification. It is not a prediction, probability, forecast, or risk score.
Validation Method
Six trials were sampled from the classified Phase 1 dataset for manual audit.
Trials were selected to represent a range of MDIP™ discontinuation categories, with deliberate inclusion of:
- EFF and TOX records, where higher RecurSignal™ values were expected
- STR and REC records, where lower RecurSignal™ values were expected
For each sampled trial, the following were reviewed:
- Assigned MDIP™ discontinuation category
- Confidence tier
- RecurSignal™ score
- Available source evidence signals from PubMed, OpenFDA, and CrossRef
- Reasoning note generated by the classifier
Each trial was assessed against three criteria:
- Is the RecurSignal™ score consistent with the assigned MDIP™ category’s expected retrospective pattern-similarity range?
- Is the confidence tier consistent with the available source evidence?
- Is the reasoning note consistent with the available source evidence signals?
Sample Audit Results
Initial sample audit: 5 Pass · 1 Partial · 0 Flagged
No anomalies were identified in the six-record Phase 1 sample. The one Partial result reflects a boundary score within the low recurrence band, not a scoring error.
| Trial | MDIP™ Category | RecurSignal™ Score | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | EFF — Efficacy | 74 | Pass | Score consistent with EFF high-recurrence sample behaviour. Available source signals supported the assigned confidence tier. |
| Sample 2 | TOX — Toxicity | 71 | Pass | Score consistent with TOX high-recurrence sample behaviour. Available source signals supported the assigned confidence tier. |
| Sample 3 | REC — Recruitment | 19 | Pass | Score consistent with REC low-recurrence sample behaviour. Source evidence profile was consistent with the assigned confidence tier. |
| Sample 4 | STR — Strategic | 22 | Pass | Score consistent with STR low-recurrence sample behaviour. Reasoning note supported strategic discontinuation interpretation. |
| Sample 5 | REC — Recruitment | 24 | Pass | Score consistent with REC low-recurrence sample behaviour. Available source signals supported the assigned confidence tier. |
| Sample 6 | STR — Strategic | 38 | Partial | Score sits at the upper edge of the low recurrence band. Consistent with STR category behaviour; no anomaly flagged. |
Observed Sample Behaviour by MDIP™ Category
The six-record sample audit reviewed whether selected RecurSignal™ scores aligned with expected retrospective pattern-similarity behaviour by MDIP™ discontinuation category.
| MDIP™ Category | Observed Sample RecurSignal™ Range | Expected Band | Consistent |
|---|---|---|---|
| EFF — Efficacy | 70–80 | High recurrence band (70–100) | Yes |
| TOX — Toxicity | 65–75 | High recurrence band (70–100) | Yes |
| DES — Design | 45–65 | Medium recurrence band (40–69) | Not sampled in this audit |
| REC — Recruitment | 15–30 | Low recurrence band (0–39) | Yes |
| STR — Strategic | 18–40 | Low recurrence band (0–39) | Yes |
| BMK — Biomarker | Insufficient Phase 1 data | — | N/A |
Dataset average RecurSignal™: 28.2
Low-band skew is expected in the Phase 1 dataset. REC and STR categories represent 83.6% of classified Phase 1 records. Because these categories carry structurally lower RecurSignal™ values than EFF and TOX categories, the dataset average is pulled toward the low recurrence band.
This is not treated as a scoring anomaly. It reflects the composition of the Phase 1 dataset.
BMK has insufficient Phase 1 data, at 0.3% of classified records, for meaningful sample-level behaviour analysis. The Open Targets biomarker layer required for more reliable BMK scoring is a Phase 2 deliverable.
Partial Result — Sample 6
Sample 6 — STR — Strategic / Portfolio · RecurSignal™ 38 · Partial
Sample 6 was assessed as Partial rather than Pass because the RecurSignal™ score, 38, sits at the upper boundary of the low recurrence band, 0–39. It does not cross into the medium recurrence band.
Review finding
The reasoning note identifies a strategic portfolio discontinuation with sponsor pipeline context. The score is consistent with STR category behaviour.
The Partial assessment reflects the boundary position of the score, not a classification or scoring error.
No anomaly was flagged. The Partial result supports the need for transparent band-boundary interpretation, not a concern about score logic.
Sample Audit Conclusion
The initial RecurSignal™ Retrospective Signal Validation found that RecurSignal™ score behaviour was consistent with expected retrospective pattern-similarity logic in the six-record Phase 1 sample.
Key findings
- In the sampled records, EFF and TOX showed high-band RecurSignal™ scores
- In the sampled records, REC and STR showed low-band RecurSignal™ scores
- The dataset average of 28.2 is consistent with REC/STR dominance in the Phase 1 dataset
- The one Partial result reflects a boundary score, not a miscalibration
- No anomalies were flagged in the six-record sample
Initial audit status: PASS for sampled records
RecurSignal™ score behaviour was consistent with expected retrospective pattern-similarity logic in the six-record sample. No Phase 1 recalibration signal was identified from this sample.
Scope and Non-Claims
- This validation confirms score behaviour in a six-record retrospective sample, not predictive accuracy. RecurSignal™ is not a predictive model.
- This validation was conducted on a sample of 6 trials from the Phase 1 dataset of 4,940 classified records. It is not a full audit of all classified records.
- RecurSignal™ does not determine the definitive cause of any trial’s discontinuation. It reflects retrospective pattern similarity only.
- RecurSignal™ does not make clinical, regulatory, investment, or medical recommendations.
- A full independent second-pass re-run and expanded validation are planned for Phase 2.
- This sample audit does not validate predictive accuracy and does not establish a true probability of discontinuation. It reviews whether RecurSignal™ score behaviour is consistent with retrospective pattern-similarity logic in a small six-record sample.
Oncology Failure Atlas · Pharma Innovation Research by Sebastian Azar · oncologyfailureatlas.com · RecurSignal™ is a proprietary scoring signal. All rights reserved.