dave_SLC said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. The objection nobody has made: this only works if the measurement is doing what we assume it is doing, and that assumption has not been tested here.

dave_SLC said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

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.

dave_SLC said:

If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.

That reframing is the part I needed. I will report back once I have actually tried it.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

SarahChen_PharmD said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.