hans_munich said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

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.

hans_munich said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

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.

hans_munich said:

Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.

This answered a question I did not know how to ask. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.

LindaRN_retired said:

The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked.

This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.