Sadly, despite earlier reports of (slight) efficacy this study found that treatment with Tilavonemab wasn't significantly better than placebo.

>A total of 453 patients were randomized, of whom 337 were treated with tilavonemab (300 mg, n = 108; 1000 mg, n = 116; 2000 mg, n = 113) and 116 received placebo. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable across groups. The mean age was 71.3 (standard deviation [SD] 7.0) years, 51.7% were female, and 96.5% were White. At baseline, the mean CDR-SB score was 3.0 (1.2), which worsened through Week 96 for all treatment groups. The least squares mean change from baseline at Week 96 in the CDR-SB score with tilavonemab was not significantly different compared with placebo (300 mg [n = 85]: −0.07 [95% confidence interval (CI): –0.83 to 0.69]; 1000 mg [n = 91]: −0.06 [95% CI: –0.81 to 0.68]; 2000 mg [n = 81]: 0.16 [95% CI: –0.60 to 0.93]; all P ≥ 0.05). The incidence of any adverse event and MRI findings were generally comparable across groups.Tilavonemab was generally well tolerated but did not demonstrate efficacy in treating patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. Further investigations of tilavonemab in early Alzheimer’s disease are not warranted.

[removed]

"we get extra bits if we human harder!"

Remember, kids: robots are racists

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It’s significant (and the 95% CI indicates it is reasonably so), but this is a post hoc analysis of an outcome they already ‘knew’, in a trial that already had many outcomes, making this result at pretty high risk of being a chance false positive. This is probably why they don’t give actual p values - the findings are hypothesis generating, not confirmatory.

OK, but I need 2500 kcal per day to function. If I don't eat carbohydrates, what am I going to replace them with?

Haven't done the math, but about an 8 percentage point difference and a sample size of 1000, that seems significant to me

I blame fossil fuel execs buying our politicians no matter who we vote for.

Built by biased humans.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I have a cat that was used to test some iron based ones. I’m not sure if it ended up working well enough in that for. The cat didn’t have cancer, they were targeting reproductive tissue before spaying surgically to be able to examine the outcome in the tissue.

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

And of course my ADHD brain reads "MWDs" and I'm immediately confused about "Meapons of Wass Destruction".

Well Vitamin D wouldn’t have any affect on a non natural birth aka cesarean.

[deleted]

[removed]

My point was that that dollar amount is meaningless without context of how much is being spent.

I also don’t think it would save billions of dollars in, say, Canada, which would still be only a modest couple of percentage of points of savings.

I use a Lief monitor, with heart rate variability feedback. It monitors me and provides queues on when and how to breath. I was skeptical at first but I've seen a large improvement in managing m anxiety.

It’s more than a 13% increase, that seems pretty substantial to me

Yeah, I also said a Public system. The United States could get down to 4-5k per year just by switching to a single payer system.

After that it very much matters how you manage resources.

[deleted]

I know you just threw out a number there, but if we’re talking single digit billions, that’s such a small percentage of health care dollars that it would barely register.

If the average person in the US costs $13k a year in health care, scaled down to the individually, billions of dollars would be like… tens of dollars per person of that $13k.

The US spends trillions of dollars a year on healthcare.

[deleted]

Those effect sizes are quite small. If be surprised if they were statistically significant.

I'm making dozens of cinnamon buns as we speak...:)