Ah, again, another time inclusion error on my part. face palm. Thanks. I think I know how I keep getting tripped up now between going back and forth between the chart and the stats.
Other than that, yes, I can't seem to wrap my head around the 44 versus 74 (or 64) conundrum. Is it possible an error was made by the investigators?
Senti seems to have more confidence in counting the censors, and you have more confidence in counting the steps, and you both are quite close to each other in your counts. When senti blows images up, like AVII did, the picture does not seem fuzzy.
Go back to the publication stats. Forget the chart for a second. Can we agree 44 of 182 are alive at or beyond thirty-six months. Thus 64 must be alive at 36 months or less. Can we safely infer by taking 331 - 182 = 149. Therefore there are 149 people as of March 2017 that had surgery less than 36 months prior to that date. Thus 43% (aka: 64 / 149) of patients between 18 and 36 months post surgery were alive March 2017. Is that a safe presumption ignoring the chart?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
