OncAdios LLC

Senior oncology-development judgment for the decision your program turns on next — before the capital and the calendar are committed.

For founders, CMOs, boards and investors deciding how to design an early trial, what a first-in-human program has actually shown, or what to take into an FDA meeting. The work is done by one accountable senior operator: Jesús Gómez-Navarro, M.D., thirty years in oncology drug development, seven anticancer approvals.

OncAdios is independent of the asset-acquisition thesis, the model vendor, and the capital already committed. In AI-originated programs the scarce input is not the AI; it is the clinical-regulatory operator who knows when the AI is wrong. The role is to adjudicate the oncology decision — including a disciplined no — and to remain accountable for the reasoning in the room where that decision is made.

Book a 20-minute conversation jgn@oncadios.com Fixed-scope engagements, fixed fee, scoped after the call.

Where to Start · Two Situations

Two decisions. Two fixed-scope engagements.

Both run on a fixed clock for a fixed fee, and both stand on their own. The difference is the decision you are facing — and if you are not sure which you need, the call sorts it.

The Sprint reads whether your development story survives the room it is about to enter. The Read reads what your program has actually learned, and whether the next dollar is aimed correctly — a question that does not change with jurisdiction, which is why the Read travels wherever the asset is being developed. Where the work warrants, either converts into the deeper structures below.

Book a fit call Twenty minutes. If the decision is specific enough to read in two weeks, you get a scope and a fixed fee. If it is not, you will hear that too.

What I Do · Oncology Drug Development Consulting

Three things, mapped to the three failure modes I expect to see at the FDA over the next twelve to eighteen months.

  • Endpoint and design strategy the FDA can actually review. I take AI-discovered targets and AI-prioritized candidates and translate them into endpoint structures, trial designs, and pre-IND positions the agency has precedent to accept. The model's prediction is not the endpoint; the endpoint is what the agency will adjudicate. Where established precedent fits, I use it. Where the science calls for a reasoned departure — accelerated approval on early response, novel surrogate endpoint, tumor-agnostic indication, external control — I propose it on terms the agency can engage with.
  • Trial designs that enroll. I pressure-test inclusion/exclusion logic, referral patterns, line-of-therapy windows, and combination-regimen practicality against what community oncologists will actually prescribe — before the protocol is locked. In AI-originated programs, a recurrent planning risk is confusing a computationally defined target population with one that can actually be identified, recruited, and treated at the intended sites. That gap is avoidable, and it is cheapest to close early.
  • Regulatory translation, not regulatory engineering. Serious AI/bio teams already have provenance, validation, and drift discipline. The failure mode is rarely missing engineering. The failure is that the engineering has not been translated into the language and format a CDER review division will accept, at the documentation tier the model's context of use requires. That translation is the work.

More on how oncology drug development consulting works here →

What Calibration Means in Practice

Calibration is the accuracy of confidence, not the volume of opinion.

In an AI-oncology program, calibration is the ability to look at a model's prediction, an analyst's deck, or an enthusiastic founder slide and tell — with reasons — what is true, what is conditionally true, and what will not survive a pre-IND meeting.

Calibration also asks whether the outcome being optimized is the outcome that matters. Meeting a primary endpoint, obtaining approval, achieving adoption in practice, and delivering meaningful patient benefit are different claims. OncAdios states which claim the evidence supports and refuses to promote one into another.

Every claim of consequence in an OncAdios deliverable is retrieved, source-tiered, and externally cited. Every recommendation surfaces the reasoning trail, the strongest counterevidence, and the conditions under which the recommendation would change. This is not a process — it is the calibration discipline that makes the recommendation auditable.

Calibration also means knowing when the right path is not the path the published guidance describes. Fitting inside the guidance is often correct. Proposing beyond it, in dialogue with the agency, is sometimes correct. Telling the two apart is the work — the Sprint is built around exactly that question.

When the evidence does not support a recommendation, OncAdios refuses to make one. Refusal is part of the output, not the absence of one.

OncAdios is itself an AI-augmented practice. AI is the leverage layer — used in retrieval, drafting, source-tiering, adversarial review, and pattern recognition across decades of regulatory precedent — under senior clinical-regulatory judgment and the operating standard linked below. The point is not that AI is fast. It is that the calibration system above is how AI gets used safely when the stakes are this high. The operating standard →

Engagement Structures

Three structures, in descending order of typical availability.

The Calibration Sprint and the FIH Diligence Read are the fixed-scope entry points. These are the deeper commitments they convert into where the work warrants — a program need, not a default. Ongoing structures are shaped to scope and accountability: reserved weekly capacity, named decision rights, a fixed term, and artifacts that retire specific decisions.

Selected Engagement

Fundación INIBIC

Regulatory strategy and evidence synthesis for a therapeutic innovation programme in oncology.

Who I Work With

You and I will be a fit if:

  • Your program is pre-IND or in Phase I, and funded to act on the decisions in front of it — whether the science is AI-originated or conventional.
  • Your team is strong on the science — and on computation, where the program is AI-originated — and already sees clinical-regulatory judgment as the next seat to fill, not the last.
  • The decisions in front of you in the next 90 to 180 days are real, and your program turns on them: endpoint strategy, trial design, FDA interactions, indication choice.
  • Where the work becomes ongoing, you want reserved senior capacity with real decision rights and direct accountability — a structure shaped to the scope, not a name on the deck.
  • Or you are an investor, board member, or family office evaluating someone else's oncology program — before a round, a partnership, or a disciplined no — and the question is whether their development story is calibrated.

Ongoing work is priced for reserved capacity and accountability, not for access: a defined weekly commitment, named decision rights, a fixed term, and artifacts that retire specific decisions. Fixed-scope work is a different instrument: the Calibration Sprint and the FIH Diligence Read are a fixed fee for one defined decision and an artifact that stands on its own, and they end. What that excludes is the retainer — the name on the deck, the board-call contract, the open-ended claim on the calendar that consumes optionality and produces nothing a more junior advisor could not. Where the work becomes ongoing, the shape is a small number of companies, deep involvement, and accountability for the outcomes that determine whether the molecule lives or dies.

The Standard

Behind every OncAdios deliverable is a working calibration system, not a marketing claim.

A Citation-Required Output Contract enforces refuse-or-cite by default. A physician-validated reference set is used to check agent outputs for citation discipline, counterevidence handling, and reasoning externalization. An AI Agent Operating Charter defines what data is processed in which channel, with strict confidentiality discipline for pre-competitive and identifying client material. Every recommendation of consequence surfaces, alongside the conclusion, the sources used, the alternatives considered, the strongest counterevidence, and the conditions under which the conclusion would change.

When you ask "how do you know this is right?" — the answer is a working system, not a policy document. This standard is what makes a confidence claim defensible — both when it agrees with established guidance and when it proposes to move beyond it.

Read the operating standard in detail →

About

Jesús Gómez-Navarro, M.D.

Jesús Gómez-Navarro, M.D.
Currently advising an early-stage oncology program: clinical development plan for a first-in-class asset, trial design, endpoints and translational plan

Board-certified medical oncologist with 30+ years in oncology drug development. As VP, Head of Clinical R&D at Takeda Oncology (2011–2020) and Takeda's inaugural Distinguished R&D Fellow (2020–2022), his strategic and technical leadership contributed to advancing the anti-CTLA4 antibody tremelimumab from first-in-human through Phase 3, and to seven anticancer approvals worldwide, including by the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and NMPA.

He founded OncAdios LLC in 2022 to bring calibrated clinical-regulatory judgment to AI-oncology and biotech companies as fractional CMO, board director, or co-founder. Based in Madrid; much of the career above was built in the Boston and Cambridge oncology cluster, and he travels there when an engagement warrants it.

Full biography and scientific record →

Early career

Pfizer

Oncology drug development

Mid career

Millennium Pharmaceuticals

Oncology drug development
Cambridge, MA

2011 – 2022

Takeda Oncology

VP, Head of Clinical R&D (2011–2020)
Distinguished R&D Fellow (2020–2022)
Cambridge, MA

2022 – present

OncAdios LLC

Founder · Fractional CMO · Board director · Co-founder

Approvals contributed to across the career arc

NINLARO · ADCETRIS · ALUNBRIG · ICLUSIG · ZEJULA · CABOMETYX · EXKIVITY · and tremelimumab (later approved as IMJUDO) advanced from first-in-human through Phase 3.

How to Start a Conversation

A small number of engagements per year.

If the decision in front of you in the next 90 to 180 days is real — and your program turns on it — the conversation is worth twenty minutes. If the decision is specific enough to read in two weeks, you get a scope and a fixed fee. If it is not, you will hear that too.

jgn@oncadios.com
linkedin.com/in/jesus-gomez-navarro