Posted On: 01/02/2015 12:27:51 PM
Post# of 30066
They been saying "highly significant" in the PR's for the last few months.
Even in the Chairman Blogs this Summer (there are 3 on Lympro data) it says it.
"To that end, we achieved our objective, as the KOL community was extremely impressed that with a single marker we were able to show a highly statistically significant differentiation between Alzheimer’s and a healthy control, and believe that collaborators in the fall will be available for the CLIA-enabling study we will be running at our prospective partner’s laboratory."
http://www.thechairmansblog.com/amarantus-bio...-002-data/
Maybe the confusion is the link that barcode shared in his post:
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2505300
Looking at the 2005 study it says:
"Results: Review of the 8 years of clinical records of the N= 28 control subjects from the original study reveals interesting prognostic information gleaned from the original wet biology biomarkers. In particular, two markers to be presented show hints of prognostic utility with weak statistical significance ."
If you read the whole abstract on not just the quote, I think they are talking about the link between additional biomarkers.
The January results, in less than 2 weeks, will focus on:
"Mr. Commissiong will review results of the full 140-subject LP-002 study assessing the predictive value of LymPro in patients with mild , moderate and severe AD. "
Previous results were for moderate to severe. I don't expect the numbers to be different. This is about early detection which is a very big deal.
Even in the Chairman Blogs this Summer (there are 3 on Lympro data) it says it.
"To that end, we achieved our objective, as the KOL community was extremely impressed that with a single marker we were able to show a highly statistically significant differentiation between Alzheimer’s and a healthy control, and believe that collaborators in the fall will be available for the CLIA-enabling study we will be running at our prospective partner’s laboratory."
http://www.thechairmansblog.com/amarantus-bio...-002-data/
Maybe the confusion is the link that barcode shared in his post:
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=2505300
Looking at the 2005 study it says:
"Results: Review of the 8 years of clinical records of the N= 28 control subjects from the original study reveals interesting prognostic information gleaned from the original wet biology biomarkers. In particular, two markers to be presented show hints of prognostic utility with weak statistical significance ."
If you read the whole abstract on not just the quote, I think they are talking about the link between additional biomarkers.
The January results, in less than 2 weeks, will focus on:
"Mr. Commissiong will review results of the full 140-subject LP-002 study assessing the predictive value of LymPro in patients with mild , moderate and severe AD. "
Previous results were for moderate to severe. I don't expect the numbers to be different. This is about early detection which is a very big deal.
(0)
(0)
