They dont cherry pick results as much as they cherry pick the patients that are candidates for the protocols. By selecting patients with better prognostic features, health etc they in effect have a patient population that will survive longer than expected. At the conclsion of phase 2 they more often cherry pick endpoints that they then use in phase 3.
>If I understand what poster DewDiligence is saying, selection bias (program-survival bias) is observed because companies can cherry-pick results to present from Phase 2 trials but it cannot do the same with subsequent Phase 3 trials?<
The issue I’m talking about is not cherry picking but rather attrition. The efficacy observed in phase-2 programs that end up advancing to phase-3 is biased on the high side relative to the true efficacy of the drugs in question. This bias is either underestimated or not understood by many biotech investors. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
