Along with your questions, I have emailed off the following
When did management find out protocol was not followed? Was it reported before end of May? If not why they did not care to have a check during enrolment?
When doctors use a stethoscope they obviously have the ears blocked from ambiance only hearing the lungs to a certain degree.
So why can't we use a ambiance monitor when doing the test if it's required not to test in a consultation room?
So it begs the question, who is going to ask about the 95% Confidence Intervals for the Australian data?
The update was published on 22 July 2017, less than a month ago, but with NO confidence intervals. https://www.resapphealth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1684564.pdf
To put this in lay terms...the test result was 89% sensitivity for pneumonia in the 123 patients studied (with cough, age, gender, symptoms)
The 95% confidence interval is a statistically calculated range that states the likelihood that the result falls in that range.
If for example the 95%CI for the 89% result was say 85%-95%, then there is a 19/20 chance the result lies in that range, i.e. happy days
If, on the other hand, the range was 40%-95%, hello, we have a very uncertain result.
Can someone ask about the Aussie results...I cannot think why this valuable metric was omitted from the recent update.
New parameters for new trial? What are they?
When can we start new trial?
Suggest comprehensive induction of upgraded procedures, then comprehensive exam to insure these people are competent, open book testing in induction process is obviously detrimental.
Large percentage of random audits at every site, every day.
Suggest over seen by highly qualified independent persons (prof) in the field EVERYDAY of trial.
Whatever the gift card system offered for test...increase it.
There are 3 hospitals involved. Did all 3 hospitals screwed up?
Is this a failure of the underlying technology and machine learning algorithm or is it purely a failure of the way the trial was conducted? What percentage of the failure of the study can be ascribed to the failure to adhere to protocols?
How can you substantiate the answer the above?
How can you explain the large statistical disparity between the Australian and US results (in scientific, not narrative terms)?
Can you specifically identify the deficiencies in the samples that WERE analysed that could have contributed to the results?
Is there a way to ensure the trial protocol is strictly adhered to while maintaining the double blind trial integrity (pretty sure there is)
I want to know why the results of AUS and USA are so varied?! Were the Australian tests done in ideal, quiet, unrealistic 'real world conditions"? and why was it not foreseen for this to be an issue?
Are they able to extract any results from the trial that would show similar results to Australian trails, even on small numbers?
Cheers
GC
RAP Price at posting:
7.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)