No, it means average. Which simply means that summing all 32 Cogstate scores and P300 amplitudes and dividing by 32, that figure was higher after the treatment. What we do not know is the distribution of the individual scores. If the distribution is normal, the majority of the 32 patients (ie, > 16) had the improvements. We know this is true for the MMSE score; the company says so in the abstract. They did not for the Cogstate and P300, so it is likely untrue for them. Most likely, the distribution of improvements in the Cogstate and p300 were not normal, and that less than a majority showed improvement in those two tests.
A few observations:
1. We only know "improvement" and a vague sense of the distribution of improvement among the 32 patients, but not how much improvement. Could be a lot, could be a little.
2. This is not "bad", nor is it "great". It is just "good". Good is good enough for further clinical trials, and perhaps commercialization. After all when it comes to AD treatments, any improvement is good if it is statistically significant.
3. The abstract might just be conservatively or sloppily written. I doubt it, because the company must know how important it is, but nevertheless it does happen.
4. The "more complete results" on Saturday will clear things up.
5. Anyone who treats a stock like a "sure bet" at the horse track is going to get hurt eventually. You need to know that stocks are a risk.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
