One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Following on from DebRD_ATL — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
HPLC_Greg said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsOP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
rachel_ABQ said:Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.
Correct, and worth adding that it is reversible. Nothing being described here is a one-way door, which changes how cautious it is reasonable to be.