GenomicsKate said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

GenomicsKate said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.

GenomicsKate said:

For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.

Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. Taking it to my next appointment.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then measure again under the same conditions.

Dr.EndoIndy said:

Order of operations matters more than any single choice here: establish a baseline, change one thing, wait long enough for it to express itself, then…

Same pattern here, and in the same order. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.