I write with a concern that I do not think has been addressed adequately by RAP’s m’ment or discussed in this forum.
My concern relates to the stark difference between the results of the ‘pilot study’ reported on 22 March (before Pfizer’s first acquisition offer) and the results of the ‘data confirmation study’ reported on 21 June (after Pfizer’s acquisition offer), and a lack of explanation as to why such a difference in results was found.
As a reminder – on 22 March, RAP reported to the market that ResApp’s had a 92% sensitivity and 80% specificity for detecting COVID-19 (fantastic, right?; price jumped). Then, on 21 June, the App’s performance was revised to a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 71% (not so great; the scheme agreed between Pfizer and RAP was not met and the price offered reverted to 14.6c).
Science is tricky; we all appreciate that, but science is also transparent (or at least should be). Through transparency rigor and integrity are maintained.
I’ve looked but cannot find sufficient details about either study to address my scientist’s curiosity. Not about the studies’ design or the statistical analysis methods applied. Not whether the stats methods used were the same for each study (and, if different, if the results can be compared). I can’t even find what sample size the later study relied on, what power the study was designed to achieve, or what the confidence intervals around the point estimates were!!! This is a real problem as these details are routinely produced and reported and ought to have been made available for the sake of good, trustworthy and reputable science.
In my humble (but somewhat informed) opinion, the lack of apparent transparency is an example of poor practice that would not hold up to the most cursory peer review process but seems to be holding water here. To be clear, I am not suggesting any impropriety. Rather, it is a duty (in the scientific and corporate arena) to be transparent and make all relevant information freely available to allow informed decisions to be made; not doing so is problematic on many fronts.
I call on the RAP management to explain the differences in results AND to make the science behind the analysis public. I encourage shareholders to demand this of the company and, if not forthcoming, question why?
Expand
