https://x.com/chenkojira/status/1859658593588613336
This market will resolve YES if, by December 31, 2025, at least one independent, peer-reviewed study corroborates the efficacy of deep cervical lymphatic-venous anastomosis (LVA surgery) for treating Alzheimer’s disease. The study must be conducted by a separate research group from the original claims and published in a high-impact, peer-reviewed scientific journal (e.g., Nature, The Lancet, or JAMA).
The market will resolve NO on Dec 31, 2025 if no such corroborating evidence is available or sooner if significant evidence emerges that discredits the original claims.
Update 2025-08-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Animal studies do not count toward resolution.
A clinical trial is not required; human case reports/series are sufficient, provided they are independent, peer-reviewed, and published in a high-impact journal as specified.
Update 2025-08-22 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Endpoints: Standard Alzheimer’s clinical endpoints (cognition and daily function) are expected; CDR is common but not required.
Biomarkers: Movement in the expected direction is supportive but not required.
Publication status: A study can qualify if published or formally accepted in a major/high-impact peer-reviewed journal (e.g., Nature, The Lancet, JAMA).
Update 2025-08-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Sufficient case series: A human case series of about 5 independent patients with clinically meaningful improvement on standard AD endpoints, published or formally accepted in a major/high‑impact peer‑reviewed journal, is sufficient for YES.
Single weak case insufficient: A single case study showing only limited progress is not enough.
Exceptional single case: A single study/case with otherwise unexplainable, dramatic success, with a consensus attributing the effect to LVA, may be sufficient.
Causality standard: Proof of causality is not required; publication/acceptance in a major/high‑impact peer‑reviewed journal that argues LVA might be responsible is sufficient on that front.
1,000
3.00@dsj animal research would not count, but it doesn't need to be a clinical trial. Case report/series in humans would be sufficient.
@dsj I’d look for standard Alzheimer’s endpoints: cognition and daily function ( Clinical Dementia Rating is the most commonly used, but not required). Biomarker movement in the expected direction is a plus. Most important is publication or acceptance in a major peer-reviewed journal.
@Mactuary Thanks for the clarification! Sorry for being pedantic, but a few more questions:
1. Is improvement on the cognitive/functional endpoint required, or merely less worsening than expected? (If the latter, does "than expected" require a placebo group, or are external controls sufficient?)
2. Is statistical significance required? Endpoints like CDR-SB can be pretty noisy for an individual person, especially over the course of only a few months.
@dsj The market title notes this is meant to assess whether this is a potential legitimate treatment for AD. If there's substantial evidence- I'll say 5 people with a clinically meaningful result- that would be sufficient- A single case study showing limited progress against these endpoints would not be enough, while a single study showing otherwise unexplainable success and a consensus that ties it to LVA would be. It need not be the case that LVA is causally linked, but there must be accepted for publication in a respected journal on the basis it might be.