A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
How would you tell the difference between that and the alternative explanation?
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
DataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Worth separating that from the trial evidence, which this thread keeps folding into the same question. They behave differently and the advice does not transfer.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDataDave said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Reporting back.
Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have. That was reassuring rather than otherwise.