Following on from CarlaRPh_TPA — and this may be the naive question:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
wanda_boise said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would add the less popular caveat: these trial populations under-represented several groups, older adults and the highest BMI categories among them. The results probably generalise, and "probably" should be stated as an assumption rather than dropped.
wanda_boise said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Agreed, and subgroup analyses deserve particular suspicion. With enough subgroups something is significant by chance, and pre-registered subgroups are a different animal from ones found afterwards.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardswanda_boise said:Relative and absolute effects need reading together.
Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes. Taking it to my next appointment.
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.