The line has a clear down slope. Don't be fooled by the AVXL tactic of using a purposefully wide y-axis so it looks flattened. They only needed about 5 points spread on the MMSE range and had they done that it would look like it was racing downhill. If you want to put it into perspective compare the down slope to historical placebo groups...as you should know it does not look good.
, then begins to ascend (cognition improvement).
You are talking about the "5-week" miracle between 52 and 57 weeks? Pure decline to 52 weeks then it kicks in?...not plausible Likely explanations: 1. the researchers knew it was the final point and were more generous in their interpretations 2. Dropout data incorporated in a poor manner 3. Random variation
Are you familiar with the acronym LOCF as used in clinical trial results graphical representations?
"Because one can never be fully certain whether data are noninformatively or informatively missing, it is considered good practice not to ignore dropouts. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) is a commonly used way of imputing data with dropouts. LOCF uses the last value observed before dropout, regardless of when it occurred. (1) The FDA has traditionally viewed LOCF as the preferred method of analysis, considering it likely (but not certain) to be conservative and clearly better than using observed cases, where only the data observed are used."
If 7 people were to drop out of a 32 person trial for instance, would carrying those 7 dropouts "last observed score" forward skew the "averaged" results in a trial where "lack of decline" is viewed as a "positive" result?
How were dropouts handled in the graph your referencing? Does that graph state if it represents Per Protocol or Intent to Treat? Why is that question critical to answer in properly interpreting data graphs?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
