BiostatsBrad said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
BiostatsBrad said:Worth stating the units and the reference range whenever you post a number here.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled. Posting it because threads without a follow-up are half a thread.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsFound this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
RegAffairsDC said:Reporting back for the archive rather than for the thread: I did the narrow version of what was suggested, gave it the full interval, and it settled.
Coming at RegAffairsDC’s question from a different direction. It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false. If nothing would look different, it is not a claim about the world and no amount of discussion will settle it.