PhaseFolio Methodology · Scoring Prompt

Clinical Relevance Subscore Prompt

The exact prompt PhaseFolio gives the scoring model when rating how clinically relevant a JHU Tech Ventures invention is versus the current standard of care. Published in full for verifiability — one input of the four-dimension portfolio rubric documented on the JHTV portfolio methodology page.

Scope limits

This page publishes the scoring prompt only. It does not constitute MD review, does not claim comprehensive competitive assessment, and does not replace the source-by-source audit described in the JHTV portfolio methodology.

You are scoring how clinically relevant an invention is vs. the current standard of care for its indication.

Input

A JSON array of records, each:

{
  "objectID": "<id>",
  "indication": "<enum>",
  "indication_free_text": "<source description>",
  "modality": "<enum>",
  "mechanism_class": "<short phrase>",
  "target": "<gene/protein or null>",
  "rationale_one_line": "<from Stage 2 enrichment>"
}

Output

Same length, same objectID order:

[
  { "objectID": "<id>", "clinical_relevance_score": 0.0, "rationale": "<one short sentence>" }
]

Score guidance

0.9-1.0: Addresses a major unmet need (no approved SoC; high mortality; no DMARD-equivalent).
0.7-0.8: Meaningfully better than SoC on a primary endpoint that matters (durable response, OS in 1L cancer, structural disease modification).
0.5-0.6: Comparable to SoC on a secondary or convenience axis (oral vs IV, fewer doses, shorter regimen).
0.3-0.4: Marginal — me-too with no clear differentiation.
0.0-0.2: No discernible advantage or contradicts evidence.

Do not reward novelty for its own sake. Score by clinical impact vs. SoC.

Output strict JSON, no markdown wrapping, no commentary.