Pattern Intelligence ยท NASDAQ

AXSM quant read

Axsome Therapeutics Inc ยท Healthcare

The nearest historical setups lean higher, but the completed-week chart evidence is not confirming that read yet.

1-week positive match rate 60.3%

Historically positive ยท avg analogue +2.60%

Moderate historical lean
4-week blended positive rate 67.7%

Historically positive ยท avg analogue +7.21%

Moderate historical lean
Completed-week chart evidence Chart evidence challenges the read

3 of the core evidence blocks are acting as headwinds.

Evidence agreement Historical reads agree

Not confirmed yet; needs price reclaiming trend and relative strength stopping its lag before treating the upside read as live.

Current weekly tape

Price, trend line, and fair value

Compare the stored pattern with completed weekly prices. The Fair Value line is the latest reference within this chart, held constant across the display.

Close
168.35
Trend Line
210.49
Fair value
124.79
Hover chart for weekly context.

Signal stack

What changed underneath price?

Each signal is standardized against its own recent history, so the lines show whether the current reading is unusually strong or weak for this stock.

Hover for standardized signal values.

Historical memory

Selected 4-week example returns

Each bar is a stored exampleโ€™s subsequent return, ordered by similarity. This selected set differs from the weighted global, sector and industry blend above.

Hover for analogue return and similarity rank.
Outcome frame

How varied were the historical outcomes?

The lower quartile, median and upper quartile of the selected examples. Actual future outcomes can fall outside this historical range.

Lower quartile -7.41%

What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.

Median example +1.18%

The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.

Upper quartile +7.89%

What stronger historical analogues tended to deliver.

Evidence stack

Why the model sees this setup

These are the current conditions feeding the analogue read. The point is not the number alone; it is whether the evidence agrees with the historical read.

Price vs Trend Line -20.02%

Price is below trend, which keeps pressure on the setup.

Price vs Fair Value +34.91%

Price is stretched above the current Fair Value estimate.

Market Dynamics -0.01

Market Dynamics are neutral.

Relative Strength -0.21

The stock is lagging relative strength.

Market Activity -0.09

This component is a drag.

Price Cycle +0.35

This component is supportive.

Historical rhymes

Closest resolved setups

The table keeps the model honest: these are the actual examples behind the selected-example statistics.

Ticker Week Similarity Outcome 4W return
FTAI
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7555 lower -6.04%
BKD
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7548 higher +7.30%
BLTE
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7497 higher +8.08%
SII
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7417 lower -7.87%
MAMA
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7373 higher +27.77%
CIB
NYSE
2026-06-05 0.7372 higher +13.50%
CSMG3
SAO
2026-06-05 0.7364 higher +9.95%
CSMG3
SAO
2026-06-12 0.7354 higher +18.26%
PAF
LSE
2026-06-12 0.734 lower -12.80%
ATRO
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7325 lower -5.37%
BERNER-B
STO
2026-06-05 0.7319 lower -0.40%
SII
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7315 lower -9.12%
1827
JPX
2026-06-12 0.7308 higher +6.04%
CIB
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7296 higher +5.13%
BKD
NYSE
2026-06-05 0.7269 higher +28.61%
6675
JPX
2026-06-12 0.7258 higher +3.65%
1723
JPX
2026-06-12 0.7242 higher +2.76%
KEN
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7242 lower -9.27%
0966
HKG
2026-06-12 0.7227 lower -4.91%
SAPR3
SAO
2026-06-05 0.7224 higher +5.00%
SHRIRAMFIN
NSI
2026-06-12 0.7219 higher +9.95%
HOC
LSE
2026-06-12 0.7215 lower -14.93%
WBD
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7198 lower -1.45%
MND
ASX
2026-06-12 0.7191 lower -2.31%
1802
JPX
2026-06-12 0.719 higher +4.54%
B2I
OSL
2026-06-12 0.7187 higher +11.14%
9532
JPX
2026-06-12 0.716 lower -4.49%
ZEG
LSE
2026-06-12 0.7154 lower -19.71%
600577
SHH
2026-06-12 0.7154 lower -25.28%
ESLT
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7149 lower -11.86%
Distinctive drivers

What made this setup unusual

These are the largest deviations from the run baseline, renamed into plain market language.

  • Volume pressure 1.16127
  • Sector structure 0.85619
  • Yield context 0.79914
  • Value context 0.77831
This is historical analogue evidence, not advice. It becomes more useful when historical rate, average return, chart evidence, and nearby examples all point in the same direction.
Sample audit ยท Selected examples

How much evidence stands behind the reading?

30 distinct examples across 27 companies and 2 entry weeks. 2026-06-05โ€“2026-06-12.

Median return1.18%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-13.01% to 13.98%10thโ€“90th historical percentiles
Largest company share7%Of selected examples
Weight-equivalent sample30.0Accounts for unequal weights, not dependence

The distribution, including losses

< โˆ’10%
5
โˆ’10 to โˆ’5%
5
โˆ’5 to 0%
5
0 to 5%
3
5 to 10%
7
โ‰ฅ 10%
5

0 unchanged outcomes. Bins use equal counts, not similarity weights; positive means strictly above zero.

Does one observation change the story?

Selected-example mean
0.86%
Without the best outcome
-0.09%
Without the worst outcome
1.76%
Non-overlapping within each company
-0.18% ยท 27 cases

Removing one extreme outcome reverses the meanโ€™s sign. Treat the historical lean as fragile. Companies can still share the same market shock; these checks do not prove independence.

Peer comparison

Does the result travel across comparison groups?

The headline 4-week rate blends these stored groups. The selected example chart and one-week calculation use a combined shortlist, so they will not necessarily reproduce that blend.

Comparison groupPositive rateMean returnMatchesBlend weightMedian similarity
Global
50.2%
0.92%3055%0.73
SectorSame country
90.1%
13.40%3030%0.67
IndustrySame country
86.9%
17.87%3015%0.65

Groups can share examples. Their counts must not be added together as independent observations. Similarity measures resemblance, not a likelihood of success.

Research playbook

What would strengthen or weaken this case?

Continuation

Historical lean meets chart support

Not confirmed yet; needs price reclaiming trend and relative strength stopping its lag before treating the upside read as live.

Look for the next completed weekly observation to sustain agreement in trend, relative strength and activity.

Conflict

Similar history, different conditions

If current price and direction oppose the historical lean, keep it as an unconfirmed case. Review the weaker peer group and whether the result depends on extreme examples.

Reassessment

The setup changes

A change in trend, fading relative strength or a materially different pattern can make the old matches less relevant. Recheck the pattern date and the next published reading.

Method and limits

Read the evidence in the right order

1. Compare like with like

Weekly price and indicator conditions are matched with resolved historical setups. Each listing appears once, using its most recent stored reading. Check the date and outcome horizon.

2. Separate frequency from payoff

The headline is a similarity-weighted blend of global, same-country sector and industry results where available. A high positive rate can coexist with large losses. Inspect the median, tails and individual examples.

3. Demand current confirmation

These are descriptive historical matches, not calibrated odds or an independently validated trading edge. Examples may overlap in time, share companies and reflect later data corrections. Costs, liquidity and delisted-company coverage need separate evaluation.

Evidence context