ZaraB_AL said:Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.
Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction.
ZaraB_AL said:Update — my curve sits below the published mean and the explanation is that the trial arm had support I do not have.
Coming at ZaraB_AL’s question from a different direction. The gap between trial results and real-world results is consistent and it is not fraud. Trial participants get titration by protocol, scheduled contact, free drug and dietetic support; removing that infrastructure costs a few percentage points every time it has been measured. When your own curve sits below the published mean, that is the likeliest explanation before anything about you or your material.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOne thing that is still open after ZaraB_AL’s answer:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
PeptideChemSF said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.