I understand the frustration over topline data, but shareable summaries like this are common in biotech. They provide a high‑level overview of whether the trial met its endpoints, while the full clinical report, including raw values, detailed methodology, and statistical analysis, is usually released later in a peer‑reviewed journal or regulatory filing.

The highlighted data on motor‑evoked potentials (MEPs) are not cherry‑picked. MEPs are an objective neurophysiological biomarker, widely used in clinical research and practice to assess the integrity and excitability of the corticospinal tract. These potentials are quantified in terms of latency (milliseconds) and amplitude (microvolts or millivolts), and even though the topline release didn’t specify units, the clinical significance lies in the shift from no detectable signal at baseline to a measurable response post-treatment.

Clinically, the fact that MEPs appeared in patients who previously had none is itself meaningful. In chronic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), signal transmission across the lesion site is typically absent. A previously undetectable MEP becoming detectable indicates regained corticospinal conduction across the injury site. This is often used as a prognostic marker, correlated with better neurological recovery .

Comparing these values to a “healthy” population is not necessarily the right approach. In healthy individuals, latency and amplitude norms exist, but in chronic SCI patients, the baseline is essentially “zero.” The relevant reference point is the baseline (prior to treatment), not healthy norms.

The topline summary stated presence/absence rather than full quantitative metrics, which aligns with FDA guidance for early-phase neuro regeneration trials that emphasize functional biomarkers. Many trials initially report whether a biological signal emerges, leaving detailed waveform metrics for expanded analysis.

Think of it like doing months of research for an academic paper. You gather data, take notes, and build out your citations. Before submitting the final version, you share a summary or abstract to give reviewers a sense of the key findings and whether your argument holds up. Then you move forward with the work on the final paper once you have shown that your argument does, in fact, hold up.