||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Software & Computer Services
Premaitha Share Discussion Threads
Showing 4476 to 4500 of 4500 messages
|or just Shareprophets ramping|
|Something kicking off|
|as always you look to scare and refuse to supply info and need to be called out.
Requiring ME to provide the info you would not.
I accept Premaitha's rationale excluding a small hand-full of false positives for particular Medical Features.
Of course you have nothing more (or anything) material to say by way of providing detail/info yourself.
Same old helpful Dave444 M.O. with an agenda!|
|As always people cannot accept reality!|
It's been posted as a link and the article text on LSE (and copied here) as many are not Genomeweb subscribers.
I expect all that was missing originally was the title, which I copied above that mentioned just a small hand-full of false positives in thousands of samples and put down to Biological features.
I also expect the article text was fully copied, but cannot access it.
Dave444, if any different, then please SHOW US specifically?
answered above as just updated post.
Supply us any further details if you really want to be accurate.
Would have thought that would be obvious to any helpful poster.
I expect that's the full story out now and no drama. Just planting doubt without offering info - again.|
|dave, what are you on about? just copied as Twix said, what's YOUR problem/agenda then? I wonder !!??
Feel free to supply the missing bit, whenever you like..|
|TWIXTry the full article which I have read this morning!I like to be accurate|
being the helpful chap, perhaps you could supply that comment as appears it was copied from LSE poster and is complete from there? or anyone with access to source material.
One can spot a knocker with a bias without providing the missing info - again!!
No info makes for maximm doubt though eh.
I cannot read the subscription article but the title states "The firm has seen a small handful of false positives for the test in thousands of samples run since the study, but attributed them to biological features."
That's still overall a very impressive Genomeweb write-up and set of test results. Thanks Dave444|
|Hjb1 - I notice you missed out the false positives that were reported in that article - I wonder why?|
|Getting interested other side of the pond in little old premaitha I see.|
|NEW YORK (GenomeWeb) – Premaitha Health has reported that its cell-free DNA-based screen for fetal aneuploidies performed with perfect sensitivity and specificity.
Trisomies 13, 18, and 21 have been increasing in incidence, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, common screening approaches based on ultrasound findings and other markers have false-positive rates that lead many women to seek an invasive diagnostic procedure like an amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling when it may not be necessary.
Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) providers — which include Roche's Ariosa, BGI, Illumina, Natera, and Laboratory Corporation of America's Sequenom, in addition to Premaitha and others — say that screening with their tests might bring the numbers of invasive tests performed down by identifying women at the highest risk.
As they reported in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy this month, Premaitha researchers built an automated next-generation sequencing-based workflow and relied on a cohort of almost 250 high-risk women to develop an algorithm to determine the likelihood of trisomies from circulating fetal DNA. When they gauged their algorithm's sensitivity and specificity on a separate cohort, the researchers reported that their CE-marked in vitro diagnostic test, called Iona, had 100 percent specificity and sensitivity.
"We set out to build a test that could be used by [local labs] and that technicians in two weeks could learn to do genetic testing," William Denman, Premaitha’s chief medical officer said in an interview. "That's why writing this paper was important — to show that we've accomplished that."
Premaitha launched its Iona test in February 2015. Cell-free DNA is extracted from the blood samples and fetal DNA is isolated for sequencing on Life Technology's Ion Proton platform. The results are then fed into Iona's bioinformatics pipeline.
Denman added that the test could be run in a local biochemistry lab without the need for highly trained genetics technicians, and that from extraction to analysis, the test takes three days.
As described in the paper, to develop that screening algorithm, the Premaitha team used a set of 239 samples from women at high risk of trisomies. After excluding four samples — three lacked corresponding invasive diagnostic test results and one was from a woman found to have cancer — this algorithm development set included 36 trisomy 21, 26 trisomy 18, and four trisomy 13 samples.
They tested the model they developed on a separate set of 111 samples, though one sample failed the fetal fraction validity check. They reported that all the Iona-based results matched those provided by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling, giving 100 percent sensitivity and specificity.|
Anybody got access to this who can provide a bit more detail/summary?
Premaitha Reports 100 Percent Sensitivity, Specificity for Iona NIPT Test
Feb 22, 2017 | Ciara Curtin
|and many many more new customer announcements too, not forgetting a good conclusion to the Genoma debacle.
I gather that Genoma are still apparently selling the IONA test..hmmm?|
|So next news expected to be Yourgene deal confirmed . . . . then what ? Writ hearings?|
|Ha ha ha ha ha ha|
|thinkBIG case BUY HIGH sell low|
|Buy low sell high traders dream stock|
|Good things come to those who wait patiently IMPATIENT PEOPLE ARE THE BIG LOSERS|
|There is only one way this is going.... Into the 20's pre writ.|
|thinkBigYou must feel like a clown selling out on a big loss|
|Well after all this time we are in forward motion. In positive territory as well. All negativity gone|