Could someone explain these results?

Yes he gave me some valuable data lol

1 Like

I downloaded the pdf, @far_cry0.
What exactly do you want me to explain?

1 Like

Ok, I read it and wow, what a lot of info.

So, first off they excluded people who were poor or intermediate metabolizers of P450 CYP2D6 as determined by genetic testing. I don’t know specifically what that is or who has it, but it suggests people with certain genetic makeup might benefit more.

I have to say overall it looks pretty good on negative symptoms. There’s a chart in there that shows a slight increase in positive symtoms over the duration of the trial. That’s something they have already said they will be studying in the phase 3.

It may be that the 32 mg dose is the sweet spot, which is just as well because they had 2 people with QT prolongation in the 64 mg dose but not 32.

I have not taken statistics, and I’ve never been in the pharma industry so don’t take my word for it, I could be wrong, but that’s how I read it.

1 Like

Also I noticed that they said they had best effects on patients under the age of 33.

You are serious about alogia?
Are you sure about the small difference?
Because i suffer big time from it

Have you tried sarcosine already? Because that’s the largest effect I’ve seen in studies on a positive impact on verbal skills. Something like 30% improvement.

No i am too afraid for prostate problems

But regarding the study for alogia there is high mean difference do you know what that means?

I’m not sure there’s evidence it actually causes prostate problems. But, it also appeared to have enduring effects, meaning you might not have to take it permanently, just for 6 months or so. You could get a PSA before and after a few months, to make sure nothing untoward is going on.

1 Like

I think that the mean difference is the difference between the MIN 101 dose and placebo. I don’t know how much that really means, there is a smaller mean difference between pleasure during activities, but a much more significant p value (.852). So I’m not sure how to answer your question. Maybe you can ask your Minerva contact what the percentage difference was for alogia, that would mean more to lay people.

I wish I could go back and edit my previous posts, because I’ve confused the p value and effect size.

Mods, can I fix that? @ninjastar ?

Anyway, I think I should defer to someone with a better understanding of statistics.

So after all that, I’m not sure what to tell you other than it looks like there is an effect.

1 Like

I can edit your posts for you if you tell me what to edit. My understanding of statistics is also quite limited.

1 Like

Isn’t it the other way around? A lower p value is more significant? And isn’t the cutoff usually 0.05? I’m not sure what the cutoff normally is in pharmacology, but when I took my statistics course I learned that one usually operates with a cutoff point of 0.01 or 0.05. :slight_smile:

Yes, you are correct, I think, I got the p value and effect size confused, and it does not even list effect size.

1 Like

Oh in that case woohoo yeah buddy alogia bye bye

1 Like

Would be great if your Minerva contact can break that down into percentage improvement tho!

2 Likes

Yeah i think im bothered him enough but who knows

Do you know how many subjects there were in that trial? :thinking: I couldn’t find any information on that.

234, there is a breakdown on page 8 of that PDF.

1 Like

Thank you :slight_smile:

1 Like