"I'm curious if the investigator would simply disqualify a subject if he/she even thinks a subject won't be able to finish the trial thereby making our numbers more complete so to speak.
Interesting. Guess we'll see."
Guess we'll see what?
The trial is over.
If the investigator thought the subject would pass on within 72 hours that person should have been excluded from participating.
A potential subject who could be expected to survive the first 72 hours would be qualified.
If the investigator "thinks a subject won't be able to finish the trial" but would be able to survive the first 72 hours then that investigator would NOT have been able to exclude that participant based on this Exclusion:
"In the opinion of the investigator, progression to death is imminent and inevitable within the next 72 hours, irrespective of the provision of treatment, such as rapidly progressive multiorgan failure."
"I'm curious if the investigator would simply disqualify a subject if he/she even thinks a subject won't be able to finish the trial thereby making our numbers more complete so to speak."
Excluding a participant because of mortality concerns beyond day 3 would violate trial protocol and result in a trial that was flawed. Including such a subject wouldn't make the trial "more complete"....quite the contrary.
You've heard concerns expressed about the trial protocol's requirement for a 60 day status check. You can't cherry pick the required protocol elements, certainly not for as nebulous a reason as "making our numbers more complete so to speak".
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
