Posted On: 07/12/2014 12:25:54 AM
Post# of 30067
Very interesting Post from YMB from BBallgm
"You are referring to the Steiler et al 2012 publication from U. of Leipzig. Yes, 91% / 92%. To my understanding, this was using the Version 1 of the LymPro test in the publication? I think the Version 2 is the one tested by BD and includes improvements stemming from the additional rights acquired from Memory DX. I'm expecting these improvements will increase both specificity and sensitivity.
I suspect there is significant improvement between Version 1 and 2, or they would not present the data set comparing the 2 versions at their upcoming C4CT conference.
In their recent PR:
"The team at Memory Dx conducted a significant amount of work beyond the 2012 Neurobiology of Aging publication, and we believe certain improvements to the LymPro Test ® may be made as a result of their unpublished work (Version 2)"
All of this leads me to believe that we will see 95% 95%. It would be a step backwards to see 90% 90%.
Well, it'll only be a few more days, so it's exciting to wait and see
"You are referring to the Steiler et al 2012 publication from U. of Leipzig. Yes, 91% / 92%. To my understanding, this was using the Version 1 of the LymPro test in the publication? I think the Version 2 is the one tested by BD and includes improvements stemming from the additional rights acquired from Memory DX. I'm expecting these improvements will increase both specificity and sensitivity.
I suspect there is significant improvement between Version 1 and 2, or they would not present the data set comparing the 2 versions at their upcoming C4CT conference.
In their recent PR:
"The team at Memory Dx conducted a significant amount of work beyond the 2012 Neurobiology of Aging publication, and we believe certain improvements to the LymPro Test ® may be made as a result of their unpublished work (Version 2)"
All of this leads me to believe that we will see 95% 95%. It would be a step backwards to see 90% 90%.
Well, it'll only be a few more days, so it's exciting to wait and see
(0)
(0)
