No that is not what I mean. I just didn't have time to think about it and analyze it and write it up yet. I felt it was crucial to get it out there the sooner the better. I've started on this just after I was at AAIC staring at the data wondering what the heck could be going on. Granted I also only have data that was presented by the company other information would really help in figuring out what could have happened.
The whole reason I am doing this is as you say I refuse to let any stone go unturned in this and I fully believe that PBT2 works and needs to get to people who need it as soon as possible. I do work with data all the time as part of my job that I actually get paid for! Ha.
Yes I ran full non-parametric stats. I also looked closer at the effects of the outliers last night and the placebo population as a whole. Let me preface this by saying that I know the placebo group was small and that is a problem with the trial design but this is what we have to work with. While I thought that really there is one outlier that skewed the regression line only three in the placebo group worsened and about 4 had no change. The rest of them improved with 4 improving more than the rest (3 of them ApoE4 and one not). So 7 out of 15 either worsened or showed no change and 8 improved (four of which more than the others). Since there were only three non-ApoE4 carriers, one of which improved more than the others the ApoE4 status doesn't seem to be a factor in this.
The mean change in SUVR of the placebo group (unstratified) is -0.074, when the non-carriers are removed its -0.07. Not a difference. When 3 outliers are removed and the data are stratified the mean of the placebo group becomes -0.004 and with only one outlier removed its -0.05. A marked change on the mean with removal of the outliers. I also played around with the means based on SUVR threshold that Masters used of 2.5 (greater than or less than) and it did have a pretty big effect on the means still when 1 outlier was removed but not as much when 3 were removed. And not as much difference between the greater than 2.5 or less than 2.5 SUVR for the full placebo group or the ApoE4 stratification alone. I'm not sure why Masters picked this threshold but it does seem to have an effect when the outliers are removed. Its hard to put alot of info on ymb like this. The mean SUVRchg of the treatment group (unstratified) is -0.05 and stratified for ApoE4 carriers is the same at -0.051.
Someone suggested that I was reprimanding you about this on another thread. I sincerely apologize if you felt that was what I was doing. That's not what I meant to do. I was asking you to fill me in on whether there was a reason for your posting the Bush paper along with the Chinese one aside from the fact that they were both selenium related. My concern is that Bush is no longer with Prana.
Enigmatic- sorry if the wording was confusing. That's not what I meant. The three outliers that I see are definitely ApoE4 carriers. They are shown on Masters slide 23 with the "dot" symbol. The non-carriers are shown with a triangle. There were only 3 non-carriers in the placebo group. As a side note there was a total of 77% of the trial particpants that were ApoE4 carriers. The carrier status of the participants was confirmed by the company. I have circled the outliers in red in my analysis and on the diagrams I loaded up on hot copper.
What I don't know is if they are the same 3 ApoE4 outliers that I see in the hippocampal atrophy slide 28 in Masters presentation. But its pretty likely that they are. If so, this means that its something other than PIB Pet measurement error since it was shown in two different kinds of measurements and would indicate that there's something otherwise in common that the three outliers had.
Let me know if you need further clarification on anything.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Good. I'm looking for the PBT3 and PBT4 series compounds to see what they look like. Have you looked at them?
I've been looking at this as well. Here's one -
and here's the site where I found them:
I have all of them. Some are listed under Prana and some are listed under various people. I can email them all to you zipped up to save you some time if you want. I've been looking into this as well but find it hard to find them in the patents. Any info you turn up would be much appreciated.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Those companies would be starting from scratch without Prana. We know how long that takes. Prana has lots of proof under their belt and they are taking a package to FDA. I am sure that we will see some sort of progress if not by the end of the year early next. The company already said that the quote referencing a large scale trial powered for cognition is not the thought of the company so we know that is not what they are planning.
Nah its miniscule.. you can tell by looking at the two lines its def significant when the slopes are opposing.
And now the company has responded...as pierre77 posted on hot copper this is all moot!
Rebecca from IR has replied in relation to the above article :
Thank you for alerting us to this article. We were unaware of it and it is not an authorised Prana article and we did not contribute to it in any way. We’ve also confirmed overnight that they did not speak to Colin Masters. They sourced the article from the ASX announcement and Colin’s presentation from 17th July. The article is incorrect in its inferences around a larger trial and they did not have our permission to use our logo. We’ve requested that the article be pulled down.