And insofar as it relates to therapeutics, that should be therapeutic-agnostic. Although to date, we’ve only looked at the anti-TNF alphas. So the exciting thing there is, what we’ve learned to date is our imaging readout is an objective, independent predictor of whether or not a patient is getting better or not from treatment of an anti-TNF alpha or with an anti-TNF alpha. It’s independent of all the other clinical and serological or blood-based biomarkers. That’s one, and it’s really strong. If you add some of those, and we’re looking to see which is the best combination, then you might improve your prediction, or not much closer because there’s not even a lot of ceiling left, but even closer to the ceiling of getting it right all the time or most of the time or the vast majority of the time.
So that’s really cool and promising. So we’re really trying to get to what is the optimal predictive capacity for any patient. Is their drug going to work or not? Or is it working or not early? Now related to the therapeutics, it’s less specific in that it’s not really specifically outlined in that patent. However, the fact that we can deliver and we’ve demonstrated that we can deliver an imaging probe to RA-inflamed joints, and we can do this reliably, repeatedly and stably, it should not escape your attention that then we could easily swap that out for a therapeutic. So we believe that we also have a potential powerful therapeutic in our hands, pardon the pun of hands. But — and that remains to be explored more fully when the company is funding.
But indeed, we have the potential for a powerful therapeutic. And what we’re doing in that patent application is showing that on the diagnostics side, we really have all the bases covered. That make sense?
Unidentified Analyst: Yes. So on a therapeutic, did you guys do — have you done any preclinical, just small test to see if that therapeutic validated that concept you just talked about that’s not in the patent? Have you tried anything? Or I imagine you have.
Michael Rosol: Yes. There were preclinical studies that have been done in the past, and there was some promise to those. So let me leave it at that. But really — and we have a plan for how we can go forward and really flesh that out. But in the limited data that I’ve seen to date, and much of this predates my time here, there was already promise shown. And we know a lot more than we knew then, so I think it’s only — we’re only in a better position.
Operator: There are no further questions at this time. And I would like to turn the floor back over to Dr. Mike Rosol for any closing comments.
Michael Rosol: All right. I think you’ve heard enough from me today. I want to thank you for joining us today for your engagement and all of your questions. Once again, I want to thank Erika for all her hard work here over the years. And welcome, Joe, here to the fray, at least the public-facing fray. I’m sure he’s going to be great and have a fun time. And hopefully, we’ll be talking to you, folks, before too long. So thank you, and have a great evening.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a great day.
