Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Joseph_K]

No, it is not "completely correct." You said the improvement ratio for, say, ADCS-ADL is 4, but you don't know that. You know it (insofar as you do) only for those who improved more than 3.5 points. You absolutely don't know the contribution to 'improvers" made by those who improved by an amount between just-above-zero and 3.5. Any >0 increase in the score is "improvement," and you don't know what the ratio for (unqualified) improvement is. This is why I said your statement was inaccurate. And it was.

As for your guess at n based on the assumption that "the placebo n is likely between 10 and 20," you know what they say of those who assume, yes?* It might be true, but it's nothing to count on. Why do you think n was omitted? Had Anavex included the number -- which they know -- we wouldn't have to resort to assumptions.

You say, "Anavex chose to additionally show the IMPROVEMENT efficacy by way of the Odds Ratios." No, they showed it not additionally but instead of. Showing "reduction in decline" is a measure that makes sense only if applied to all the trial participants, and Anavex didn't provide that analysis. Had they really showed it in addition I wouldn't have a gripe.


*It makes an ass of u and me.