Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
6,816.89
(
-0.11%
)
US TECH 100
24,499.60
(
0.38%
)
Dow Jones
47,916.57
(
-0.56%
)
Brent Oil
92.41
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
72,844.69
(
-0.18%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 30047
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Gold Seeker

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 29
Posts 9421
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/30/2006

Gold Seeker

Re: 96011 post# 5059

Tuesday, 09/20/2011 12:36:56 PM

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:36:56 PM

Post# of 30047
The Small-Howard article clearly shows CEA better than DR70 in all but early stage. That is why doctors will not switch from using CEA.

For early stage, the data gets "fuzzy" for both CEA and DR70 with only a few samples for data. The new data changed nothing in this article so that is why it would not be accepted by a journal.

What is frustrating is that Radient will not supply the actual numbers but just keep saying "percent better than CEA". With a published article stating that CEA only has 4% sensitivity for stage I, numbers become important because 4% is just totally worthless.


I have never shorted nor intend to have any financial interest in this stock. I am not connected with anyone who trades, shorts or has financial interests in this stock. I only post facts and my opinions. I do not post on IHUB with different aliases.

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Next 10 Prev Next

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today