These stats are a little unclear. You state they are stats for people without prior immunosuppressant use but don't mention whether this group includes patients who are both positive and negative for the JC antibody according to the new assay. If the cut-off is < .2 for a negative result, then why lump those people with all who are < .9?
Isn't this a bit of apples and oranges comparison or are you suggesting that "negative" or "positive" no longer matters, only the actual titer number?
If these numbers were presented at ENS, surely they have been published somewhere? I'm not doubting their legitimacy per se, just need more context and an official reference is simply more reliable.
Thanks.
Isn't this a bit of apples and oranges comparison or are you suggesting that "negative" or "positive" no longer matters, only the actual titer number?
If these numbers were presented at ENS, surely they have been published somewhere? I'm not doubting their legitimacy per se, just need more context and an official reference is simply more reliable.
Thanks.
Comment