what changed for me between month 5 and month 8
what changed for me between month 5 and month 8. I am not trying to be the "source?" guy. I would just like a source.
Assumed the weight numbers were the point and was corrected. They are secondary to what this is being developed for.
Went slowly because everything published describes a deliberate escalation. That is the extent of what I will say about it.
Spent an evening on the histology scoring system and understood the trial literature far better afterwards.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Histological endpoints in this field are scored on biopsy: resolution of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis, or improvement in fibrosis without worsening of steatohepatitis. Both are harder to achieve and to interpret than an imaging surrogate.
Read the phase 2 hepatic paper properly and the endpoint definitions were more interesting than the headline response rate.
Which endpoint — histological response, fibrosis improvement, or fat fraction?
MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar
Removed the escalation schedule. Unapproved compound, no protocols for other members, no exceptions.
Looked for independent results across this whole site and found almost none. Worth knowing before forming an opinion.
the hepatic data is what makes this compound different from the others
[removed by moderator]
Imaging-derived liver fat fraction is a surrogate. It correlates with histology imperfectly, and a trial reporting one is not reporting the other.
Is that a weight number from a different programme?
fibrosis improvement without worsening steatohepatitis is the phrase to learn
Not convinced. Imaging-based fat fraction is not the same as a histological response and the paper is explicit about that.
- 1MASH endpoints are histological, which is a much harder bar9 comments in this branch · started by u/refund_ledger