For me, the big question is what does "good" or "great" or "not...

For me, the big question is what does "good" or "great" or "not good": look like in this announcement....

As I have stated before, the primary indicator of efficacy in an ASD trial is based on parent surveying and comparing baseline, vs mid trial, and end of trial... On top of this the physician will also likely complete the same, or similar notes on behaviour (as a secondary viewpoint)..

I don't know how this translates into the trial findings (usually we are looking for a statistically significant result from the treatment)...

I am assuming that against each of the surveyed observations, we will see a range of the changes vs baseline across the cohort, and an average change in the observed behaviour, and then a comment on if or if not the treatment provides a statistically significant benefit for that behaviour.

Then this will be repeated across all surveyed observations... And possibly (and hopefully) there is an element to tie all of these observations into a final observation... i.e. something along the lines of the following would be great.... NTI164 has been observed to provide a statistically significant improvement of many of the underlying symptoms associated with ASD, and may, subject to further trials, provide parents with a safe and effective treatment for ASD when there are currently no existing ASD approved treatments available in the market.

Also may see some additional comment on safety (blood tests and the like)...

Obviously bad news is that there is no improvement in the view of the professor, or the improvements are marginal... Or there is a mix of improvements and declines... Then it would be questionable if it has legs...

All will be revealed soon...

Either way, their is likely to be a big move one way or the other... (is +-75% on the cards ??)