You in greenYou:"Looking specifically at seeing how IL2Ralpha...

You in green

You:
"Looking specifically at seeing how IL2Ralpha inhibition was correlated with changes in T cells activation in patients blood 28 days after treatment - we'll they could only do that if the patients blood was taken and recording allowing them to do that - and that only occurred in the case of 25 patients."

I don't believe that statement is correct:
"Results: Biomarker data were collected in 40 subjects. At baseline, the mean age was 8.5 years, aGVHD severity by IBMTR grade C or D, median MAP was 0.369, with a MAP ≥ 0.291 in 60% of subjects, reflecting active gastrointestinal inflammation and high risk for 6-month NRM."https://ash.confex.com/ash/2020/webprogram/Paper140899.html

Okay - your linked paper isn't the on I'm using as my source of the 25 (the one I'm using is at bottom).

25 patients or as I understood the 60% of the 40 patients (24, but 62.5% seemed close enough to me) of these subjects with a MAP ≥ 0.291, were then matched with "27 closely matched children from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC)2 who participated in a prospective natural history study" to show the survival benefit of the patient group treated with remestemcel-L vs SoC.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/10/18/2315632/0/en/Remestemcel-L-Improves-Survival-of-Children-With-Biomarkers-for-Highest-Mortality-in-Steroid-Refractory-Acute-GVHD.html

Or is the above simply coincidence (genuine question)?

I didn't really check your source - I'm simply substantiating my own. (below)
---------------

Here is my source : Title of article
Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy induces high responses and survival in children with steroid refractory GVHD and poor risk biomarkers.

https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41409-021-01442-3

Link get you the full article - 2 pages.

I've been calling this Kasikis et al for ages - I have posted about it previously before CRL #2.

Here's a screen shot excerpt with the sentence I'm relying on indicated in red.






"Here we report the analyses of the Mount sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) Algorith Probability of 25 of the 54 pediatric study patients with serum samples taken at the beginning of treatment and compare them to 27 closely matched pediatric patients with SR acute GVHD who particiated in a prospective GVHD natural history study".

authors -

SteliosKasikis1,Janna Baez1,Isha Gandhi1,Stephan Grupp2,CarrieL. Kitko3,Steven Kowalyk1,Pietro Merli4,GeorgeMorales1,Michael A. Pulsipher5,Muna Qayed6,MatthiasWölfl7,Gregory Yanik8,Fiona See9,Jack Hayes9,FredGrossman9,Elizabeth Burke9,Rachel Young1,JohnE. Levine1,10andJames L. M. Ferrara1,10

REFERENCES1.Kurtzberg J, Abdel-Azim H, Carpenter P, Chaudhury S, Horn B, MahadeoK, et al. Aphase 3, single-arm, prospective study of remestemcel-L,ex vivo culture-expanded adult human mesenchymal stromal cells forthe treatment of pediatric patientswho failed to respond to steroidtreatment for acute graft-versus-host disease.BiolBlood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26:845-54



Now my argument/belief is that had more than 25 patients with serum been available from GVHD001 they'd have used them - if they'd had 26 or 27 they'd of used those - they wouldn't arbitrarily leave some out - which one's would they chose to leave out - from a stats point of view you use all you have. 25 is what they had.


Does this seem reasonable?