A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
dan_philly said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
dan_philly said:If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way.
Agreed, and the size of the effect matters as much as its existence. Something real and small gets treated here as though it were real and decisive.
Correct me if the detail matters more than I have assumed.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsdan_philly 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.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Follow-up — getting the denial reason in writing was the step that mattered. It named the criterion, and the criterion was a document I already had.