5 ms·
I feel like this should probably be assumed to be a methodological problem or a statistical fluke until proven otherwise at this point.
by resoluteteeth 4y ago
I feel like this should probably be assumed to be a methodological problem or a statistical fluke until proven otherwise at this point.
- bilsbie 4y agoIt’s sad we’re at this point where we can’t trust anything published. We have to think about funding, politics, peer pressure, publication bias.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- joelthelion 4y agoThis is not your regular quick scientific paper, though. It's the result of a very large phase three trial, involving hundreds of very qualified people, and a budget of around a billion dollars. It's as serious as it can be. Of course, we should probably wait to see what the outcome of the FDA review will be.
- jcranmer 4y agoIt's the press release of the initial analysis of a readout of a clinical trial. Mining the results for good news is a distinct possibility.
- joelthelion 4y agoCDR-SOB is their pre-specified primary endpoint. It's a well accepted measure of dementia. Hard to do any mining there.
- ekianjo 4y agoOh like none of those has ever been hacked before. Either you have short memory or you are naive.
- zosima 4y agoIt definitely looks like a very clean efficacy study. This is an extremely difficult indication and almost all studies on drugs for Alzheimer's has failed previously. A study of this size meetings its primary endpoint in Alzheimer's this cleanly is definitely hard to fake. I could even suspect its easier to make a working drug for it.
- arolihas 4y agoPhase 3 trials are highly regulated and basically designed to not be statistical flukes.
- ekianjo 4y agoof course not. you need several phase 3 studies to know if your result is not a fluke. you can always get lucky.
- gizmondo 4y agoWith p=0.00005 it's very unlikely to be a statistical fluke.