GenomicsKate said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

All true, with one condition: that curve is for people who reached the dose on schedule. Anyone who slowed the ladder for tolerability is on a different, flatter curve, and comparing yourself with the published mean will make you feel like a non-responder when you are not.

Dr.ReproEndo said:

Albumin binding above 99% is the whole reason weekly dosing works, and it is also why the trough matters more than the peak.

That reframing is the part I needed.

GenomicsKate said:

The distinction that resolves most of these threads is between what is true on average and what is true for one person.

Pushing back on GenomicsKate here. The trial means are being read too generously in this thread. STEP populations were selected, supported, and titrated by protocol, and the real-world curves are consistently a few points worse. That difference is not noise, it is what happens when you remove the study infrastructure.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Happy to go further on any of that.

Moderator note: good thread. Keeping it here rather than moving it, because the question is general enough to be useful.