NurseAsh_DET said:

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

I do not accept the framing. The question has been narrowed to the version that has a tidy answer, and the part that was dropped is the part the OP actually asked about.

NurseAsh_DET said:

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

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.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

NurseAsh_DET said:

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

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

PeptideChemSF said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Same pattern here, and in the same order.