>two independent reviewers disagreed on the progress made by 39 percent of patients in the study, raising the issue of whether the main goal of the study could be reliably assessed.<
That’s not as bad as it sounds, IMO. For radiologic progression (which was one of the two main components of the SPARC primary endpoint) it’s not unusual to have one reviewer make an assessment just below the threshold for “progression” and another reviewer make an assessment just above the threshold. That’s why there are typically an odd number of reviewers in order to break ties.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
