SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Vasogen-- VAS on TSE
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pluvia who wrote (373)9/11/2006 4:21:56 PM
From: Clarksterh  Read Replies (1) of 377
 
not only are you off mark with that shot, but you're so far off you may have hit yourself in the buttocks. my suggestion: fire your calculator or stop feeding it crack. hint: what did the control population of the same excluded pts do?

You aren't getting it. You have no idea how to do stats do you? I'll try a simpler case for you 100 patients, 50 per arm
Overall 40 in one arm are 'cured' and 35 in the other:

Overall trial: 40/50 (treated) vs 35/50 (placebo) (p=0.24)

But with enough hunting we find a subgroup of 40 patients per arm where 35 are cured in the treated arm and only 25 in the untreated:

Good Subgroup: 35/40 (treated) vs 25/40 (placebo) (p=0.01)

The bad thing is that this leaves us to explain the remainder subgroup where 5 out of 10 were cured for treated and all 10 of the placebo patients were cured:

Remainder Subgroup: 5/10 (treated) 10/10 (placbo) (p=0.01. Notice that the placebo patients actually did better than the treated. Thus it is "stat sig" (p=0.01) that the treatment is hurting this remainder subgroup.).

This is straight math. I can state with assurance that in the Celacade trial analysis something very similar to the above has happened. So either Vasogen explains the MOA for how the remainder patients were hurt (after all they were almost certainly 'stat sig') or the first helped subgroup means very very little.

Note that because I do not know all the input numbers and because time analysis was done instead of straight categorical I cannot calculate the exact p value for the Celacade Remainder Subgroup - but even with conservative assumptions it is probably "stat sig" FOR CELACADE HURTING THAT PATIENT POPULATION. Just as if you believe that one side of a coin is a tails, then the other side must be a heads. Mathematically you can't believe that one side is a heads and then deny that the other side is a tails.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News