The paper looks legit from here, but it will almost certainly be used as a combo therapy, so you'll want to clarify if you meant alone or as a combo. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-treatment

First human patient is now receiving treatment :)

https://www.cityofhope.org/cancer-center-announces-first-patient-has-received-city-hopes-novel-potentially-cancer-stopping

@RobertCousineau That post is dated October 2022.

@Soaffine

https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1692166882655089094?t=A_152MqkGIWRg0zjaWreyA&s=19

As a first principle in pharmacology, if a drug is strongly effective/active for its purpose, it usually has strong side effects. There are no magic bullets, yet.

@FA I'm also voting no on this market, but this is a blatantly false statement. It's completely untrue and I hope you're not in a medical profession if you believe that!

@BenjaminShindel Name one oncology drug that doesn't have strong side effects.

@FA You didn't say oncology, you said pharmacology.

Here are a few great examples of drugs that are known for their efficacy and general lack of strong side effects:

Omeprazole

Sildenafil

Ibuprofen

Amoxicillin

@BenjaminShindel The question is on an oncology drug that claims to have a therapeutic index of 6!

Anyhow, sildenafil-> priapism; ibuprofen->stomach irritation/bleeding, acute kidney failure; amoxicillin-> high risk of allergic reactions to people that haven’t used penicillin, Steven-Johnson Syndrome

@FA You stated that "AS A FIRST PRINCIPLE IN PHARMACOLOGY", if a drug is strongly effective, it has strong side effects. That is false.

@BenjaminShindel

@BenjaminShindel All cells need PCNA to divide. Like most cytotoxics, this will likely be more harmful to the bone marrow than the cancer. But there are some oncology drugs with very few side effects, mostly tyrosine kinase inhibitors, imatinib is one.

I have made a market whose focus is clearer and resolution criteria more clearly defined : https://manifold.markets/GuillaumeTonnel/will-aoh1996-boost-5yr-survival-35?r=R3VpbGxhdW1lVG9ubmVs

"Will AOH1996 boost 5yr survival >35% for min. 2 of these cancers: brain, lung, cervical, ovarian?"

39% chance. This market gauges the potential long-term impact of AOH1996, on overall cancer survival rates. Unlike markets focusing on short-term results in clinical trials or regulatory approvals, this market probes the drug's real-world significance. To quantify, a 'boost' means a minimum 35% increase in 5-year survival rates from baseline. For instance, if a cancer type has a current survival rate of 50%, AOH1996 should elevate it to over 67.5%. Our focus is on overall survival rates across all stages of these cancers: brain, lung, cervical, ovarian. This ensures broad applicability, instead of focusing on specific stages. The resolution occurs 10 years post-approval of AOH1996, when its impact can be robustly assessed and is unlikely to grow further or any time before that when there is a broad concensus about the level of impact.

I created a related market as I found the resolution criteria on this market a bit confusing/ambiguous: https://manifold.markets/EthanFast/will-aoh1996-advance-past-phase-ii

I think the key question here is whether this drug's mechanism of action is effective in humans, which advancing past Phase II trials (either to Phase III or accelerated approval) would indicate.

Will AOH1996 advance past Phase II trials by the end of 2027?

50% chance. Recently the small molecule drug AOH1996 has recieved some attention on social media for its potential to treat a variety of cancers with basically no side effects in animal models. Here is a good overview: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/new-mode-cancer-treatment The question here is whether this drug will succeed in Phase II trials. Unlike the ongoing Phase I trials, which are designed to show safety, Phase II trails must show efficacy. Success can unambiguously be defined as either FDA approval (under an accelerated approval process, which this drug may get) or advancing to Phase III trails. (Note that in Phase III trials a drug is evaluated for comparative efficacy against other treatment options). For clarification, it is fine if the ultimate approved/advanced therapy combines AOH1996 with another treatment. If 2027 ends with neither condition met, this question resolves NO.

Have you read the paper? It doesn't claim what you seem to be thinking it claims. Either the title or resolution criteria need to be changed.

Pretty sure the claim is 100% of solid cancer types, not 100% effective. Those are two different things.

I'd change the title of this to something referencing the actual outcome you're going to be resolving on, I think "is the paper legit" mostly evokes "will the paper's findings reproduce as they were reported", not "will this work in humans in a clinical trial"

@prodict I've created a market better aligned with "do the claims reproduce" https://manifold.markets/MartinModrak/will-the-preclinical-results-on-the

Will the pre-clinical results on the cancer drug AOH1996 be broadly confirmed by independent team(s)?

50% chance. I have identified 5 main claims from the AOH1996 paper (https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-9456(23)00221-0?rss=yes) Biochemical mechanism of action Achieves inhibition of growth in many cancer types in-vitro at concentrations around 300nM or less No toxicity to…

A copy of @jack‘s “when will we know” superconductor market, but for this drug: /DanMan314/when-will-we-confidently-know-wheth

A related market for the success of the ongoing Phase I trial.

https://manifold.markets/PanosFilianos/will-aoh1996-succeed-in-phase-i-tri

Will AOH1996 succeed in Phase I trial?

50% chance. This market concerns AOH1996, a cancer therapeutic reported in this paper. It is currently in Phase I trial. This market resolves to YES, if a Phase II trial is submitted and starts for any type of cancer.

@PanosFilianos makes sense as this market is more focused on efficacy.

End set at the end of 2024 because human clinical trials started in October 2022 and last two years.

I think you're referring to the ongoing Phase I trial. That won't be the main trial that will assess efficacy. It's simply a dose-finding trial with no control group.

You probably want to re-write the criteria to refer specifically to Phase II clinical trial outcomes, and set the closing date for the market around the time when the Phase II trial (which hasn't began yet) ends.

@Natalia well, I certainly was too optimistic on the timeframe. Thank you.

@RatUziCat set 2029 arbitrarily as the resolution date.

Could you please clarify what reasons you would accept for extending the end date?

Two years is an impossibly short time for a clinical trial. Typical oncology clinical trials last 5 or more years. See also this Quora question about the fastest clinical trials where the shortest answer given was three years.

@Tossup thanks for your comment. As I'm not a professional, I have to look at the consensus every time. If other researchers accept the reasons given for delay, then it's acceptable. If they don't, if they suspect something fishy, eg unfavorable results, then market resolves NO. If there's no consensus, market is extended.

The paper says two years for the trials. Your link says three. The paper is expected to be too optimistic while your link should be more down-to-earth. I don't have time to read it now but you can expect the resolution date to be pushed by one year soon.

@RatUziCat Thank you!

@Tossup as this market focuses on efficacy, I've set the resolution time at end of 2028, arbitrarily. May change over time if trials are delayed without stalling.