Following on from GenomicsKate — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

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

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

True, and it depends on a baseline nobody has stated. Without knowing where someone started, the same number can be an excellent result or a disappointing one.

PeptideSynthNJ said:

Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.