Member Info for Techtonic

GetVisibility is the BIG one here, if they are canny enough to sell while the iron is hot.

The Tech world moves so fast, and sentiment changes so rapidly, that it's easy to get carried away and miss the sweet spot.

GetVisibility has the most potential for multibagging here, if it happens.

Thanks for that link Gggg...

I'll have a good read and comment tomorrow if I get time.

Anyone any idea when the NAV update is coming?

Cheers all

Bubble2021...

You post a lot on here, but I'm staggered you ask if a delay in the infinite reality IPO would affect Mindflair! Of course it would!!

Do you think that's what the Newbury update will be about?

When are you expecting it and how did you hear about that?

Everyone here seems to be talking around you gggg21, but what you're saying is the main issue.

That's what I've been wondering for a while.

Since the infinite reality IPO has been delayed before, I'm wondering what's going on with this.

What's your take on it?

Obviously I would think the market will not react well especially if it's going to be a few months

Hi Green..

Yes...2 tests needed, one high sensitivity then a second , high specificity.

So let's assume two Biotechne machines are used for each blood sample, set to different thresholds (@ $25K/machine, how does this work?

Does each health centre, or every geographic set of centres , have 2 Biotechne machines ..

Or are the samples sent to a central centre , thus only requiring a few machines?

Anyone any ideas about this?

From the figures we can see at the moment, with the thresholds / demographics of unknown quantity, it seems the test appears much more effective at ruling OUT lung cancer than IN.

NPVs of 94, 96 and 85 respectively .

Which, depending on targeted demographic, could be very useful, depending on testing environment...eg younger non-smokers with chronic cough. Most will not have lung cancer and the test will show that.

PPVs of 34, 42 and 55 respectively shows basically test likely to correctly locate only around half of true positive lung cancers in population though.

More info needed.

Comments / criticisms appreciated...

Cheers Jace...a nice post.

Well the next RNS I'm expecting is that the deal with BIO completes with the additional funding/details.

For me now, short term it's about taking a gamble on that RNS being good (and will it boost the share price much?)..

But there is obviously a chance that the deal doesn't make it (although I don't think that will happen).

Long term I'm struggling with the revenue forecasts, but expecting spikes /uplifts along the way with maybe leftfield developments /LFT updates etc.

Obviously potential for delays etc is always there, being Biotech.

But keeping on the contemporaneous theme of the Biotechne Jess results, it would make a huge difference for future guidance if we could find out if these Thresholds can be easily changed for the samples.

It's a huge difference between a minimally effective LDT test (on the cusp of real usefulness) to being highly effective.

Getting back to our perennial moan about Ciz..

If the company had released this clinical test data as expected by RNS (and explained it's meaning), we, again , wouldnt be in this position.

I lost faith and sold most after the fundraiser and poor Comms.

But would consider reinvesting. At the moment it's RNS by RNS with men I wish they would provide a clearer picture.

But thanks to those who found that Prospectus online as it does provide some guidance.

* fingerprick (not fingerprint)

Cheers Lovelyboy..

I'm not at all clear about it though and would have needed a longer conversation to pick into what she was saying. It's maybe that the algorithm can be changed easily, I'm not sure.

But it did get me thinking about the proposed LFT test.

I think someone else alluded to this..

At first I assumed the Fingerprint test would be a home test to be used by tens of thousands of people.

But , if the sensitivity/specificity data holds true, I now see why it will be a guided test at the Dr's.

If the LFT reagents produce the same sort of results , it would mean if 10,000 bought a home test, there would be 3,500 false positives! Obviously untenable.

So I'm figuring, they're going to use demographics to target this more, and that's why it'll be a Doctor-guided test rather than home.

It could be the managed to find a reagent that gives better results.

Only a guess.

I called Biotechne Uk this afternoon had a 15 minute chat with a delightful worker called Rachael Crossley..

I asked her (general questions) about Thresholds and parameters used for the Jess machine.

Got to confess I'm still a little unclear! (As without specific details she couldn't comment fully on the test)..

BUT it seems that changing the Threshold may not be quite as simple as pressing a button to quickly recalibrate.

The different thresholds used can be down to

1) different reagents (I wonder if the differing results are why reagent company was changed?)

2) changing the computer algorithm.

(How much background noise is filtered out)

Without being able to specify the tests, she was unable to go into detail.

So, of some use, but begs more questions than answers.

I think those who are still invested could make a few phone calls or emails and find out exactly what those different thresholds means for Ciz' test.

If it's not quite so easy (different reagents) to change the threshold then it's bad for Ciz, but maybe changing the computer algorithm and filtering out noise (which changes sensitivity/specificity) is easy/ easier?

Sorry , I couldn't do better.. I did think the answer would be a little more binary than that.

Since the evidence is in the public domain, I suggest asking Allan Syms about this...

Then you'll truly know the picture and won't after rely on my supposition and Neil's etc

If logistically, Ciz is able to first run a high sensitivity test, then a 87% specificity test with the same bloods, the accuracy rate would then be around 90%.

Is that logistically/ costwise possible? Is a 2nd blood sample required?

Am trying to get more info from a clued-up Biotech man about this .

If only one threshold can be used, the test isn't great at all; if multiple thresholds can be used for each sample, it's effective.

Can this be done logistically with time/costs and accuracy en masse? This is where sample size and NPV etc comes into play

Don't worry about it, Oliedee. Data is difficult to interpret and then you have different interpretations from different people on here!

My view on it all is this:

Cizzle has developed a test that is moderately useful as an adjunct to other tests.

When taken in tandem with other data, it could be used as further guidance in diagnosis.

But it is NOT The silver bullet that most of us on here expected..this the very modest revenue projections.

Some posters on here are asking would you rather trust what I'm saying or Cizzle?

I would trust what Cizzle is saying: and that is their revenue forecast at the end of year three is approx £5 Million to Cizzle. That could be right at the end of 2027. Until then, it is loss making.

I will post the sensitivity/ specificity threshold information later.

Final thoughts + 1 !

Thanks for that Neil.

This may be useful for people ...a definitive guide to tests really.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/18/1/5

"For a test to be useful sensitivity plus specificity should be at least 1.5"

Ciz is right on this threshold for it's best results (92 + 61)

Now with PPV , Neil, it could be useful and that it will target the demographic to those more likely to have the disease.

Cizzles test certainly could be useful as guidance and better than CT scan for sure at the moment.

But, let's take the best figures (92% sensitivity, 61% specificity)..

If a cohort of 1000 people present for testing and 100 have lung cancer...

This means 92 with be correctly diagnosed, with a further 351 false positives.

So a total 443 presenting as positive, of home only 100 (minus the 8 not picked up) are truly positive.

As Green said, maybe then testing with the other threshold of high specificity might rule in or out further.

Hope that helps and hope it is balanced.

Science is science. And revenue forecast is revenue forecast. It's all there for you.

It's a shame really that contrarian posters like me, Oakp etc are going/gone. Widdy appears to be the only one to have called this right.

It's leaving an echo chamber for positivity without challenge.

Congratulations to Green for trying to buck the trend.

I said a while ago that this is like shifting sands.

Rather than change your views, and be flexible with new data, investors on here are morphing the data into what they want it to be. Humans. Stubborn. Irrational.

Seems like people are investing in the Cizzle they want it to be, rather than the Cizzle in actuality - the Cizzle that is telling you THEMSELVES that revenue will be very average even optimistically in year three.

And the data on those tests is TERRIBLE! Hardly over 40% accuracy in 2/3 tests and approx 40% false positives.

I think the worst part of being on forums like this is herd mentality, sheep. Being shouted down. Hierarchy and "leaders".

It summed it up when Neil posted that utter guff about supposedly confidential information (that anyone could find on the net) , intimating that it was all great (but he couldn't share it..right).

You should find a new god. The one you are following is a false one.

I challenge Neil now to be honest..say what's on the tin, and state those clinical data figures (compared to other commercial blood tests) are extremely poor.

I do want to say that I've enjoyed some of the banter and a lot of the decent posts on here. Most posters have had lots of good things to say and brought great information to light.

Anyway Good Luck to all.

Adieu mes Amis!

This tool is leaving the box soon.

Ps Bidnolid..the "Hive" .. you mean the renowned ramping telegram group led by a certain person that picks on a share and throws loads of cash into it?

Makes a lot of money for the chosen few but many get burned?

Are they set to target Cizzle? Wouldnt surprise me with this market cap.

Brond, Green , vinc et al...

When I had a shed load in here and we will waiting for what we thought would be clinical data results earlier this year..

If that had in fact been the case, and an RNS had revealed this in March /April,

How do you think the market would have reacted?

And again, specific question.

If you knew then what do you know now would you have invested at all/ as much?

Nice one Brond..

Hope you're someone nice :o)

Indeed, CT scans are more expensive and not very accurate.

But it doesn't follow that cizzle is going to penetrate a market (with only 5.8% take up in screening of 14 million people - approx 700,000k max at mo) with a test that is also not very accurate.

As Green rightly mentioned, to get this anywhere near decent accuracy they would have to do multiple tests.

And 2 out of three accuracies was 42%.

I think rather than transfer to another inaccurate system healthcare providers will sit on their hands.