You are overthinking it!
I am just interested in the absolute difference in brain volume loss reduction within the Anavex study between the dose and placebo arms and whether that is correlated to clinical benefits.
To calculate the p-values Anavex would know the absolute brain loss difference figures, but of course they chose not to reveal - likely because of some secret WGT wonderfulness?
Anavex now over 1.5 years since the TLR, would also easily be able to correlate brain volume results to clinical outcome measures in more ways than you could shake a stick at from the relatively small study. All the data however complex to process must have been in for a good while by now. That leaves open the question how much effort is going into making the results look more pretty than they might be, imo.
I am looking to know that kind of contextual hard information so I can update my view on approval chances - I don’t do that just because a biotech publishes some on the surface great looking naked odds ratios or p-values. A simple point I am and have been consistently making, which seems to get WGT folks into overdrive finding great explanations that they think I’ve missed. Others just resort to emojis, but I prefer your approach that I can actually reply to for a somewhat meaningful discourse.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
