koo, the norm in social sciences and it appears biotech research and scientific research also is to achieve statistical significance at a 95% confidence level or higher which means that the results that were observed (the differece between the test group and control group of time to first event in the BoM trial) have only a 1 in 20 chance of being a random event not due to the treatment (apabetalone). Based on some of the posts I've read on this site and Stockhouse I came to the conclusion that some investors (i.e. BPs) want more certainty. At the 99% confidence level there is only a 1 in 100 chance that the observed results (difference in test vs control) is a random event assuming a clean experiment.

So the point I was trying to make is that either significance level achieves the result (success) but there may be lingering doubts or less value or excitement in top lines at 95% vs 99%.

Of course for serious acquisitors the devil will be in the details which will be revealed in the post hocs over time.

I hope that helps. Please challenge me if I'm off base.

GLTA. Cheers

Toinv